MARKed - astonishing text variants

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.
There may be some astonishing text variants, but sometimes it is astonishing, if there is no text variant :mrgreen: I think we would strongly expect an "Abimelech", but only the "ἱερέως" is there

laparola Mark 2:26 :eh:
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως] ‭א B G K L Y 118 157 892 1010 1195 1216 1230 1242 1342 1344 1365 1424 1646 2174 2427 Byz l69 l70 l76 l80 l150 l299 l1127 l1634 l1761 arm WH
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως] A C Θ Π Σ Φ 074 f1 f13 28 33 565 579 700 1071 1079 1241 1253 1546c 2148 al Lect copsa copbo ς
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως or ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως] itaur itc itl itq vg (syrp) syrh syrpal(mss) geo
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἱερέως] Δ itf (goth omit τοῦ)
omit] (see Matthew 12:4; Luke 6:4) D W 855 1009 1285 1546* 1668* 2774 ita itb itd ite itff2 iti itr1 itt syrs (syrpal(ms))
While I would not be surprised to find Abimelech, I am also not suprised not to find it. By far the easiest scribal or redactional solution to the problem is simply to omit the clause, which is exactly what we find in Matthew, Luke, D, and W, as your snippet from LaParola shows. It is quite similar to what we find in Mark 1.2: the scribes do not solve the problem of attribution by specifying Malachi; rather, they generalize "Isaiah the prophet" to "the prophets" as a group.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Abiathar is commonly thought of as the son of Ahimelech:

1 Samuel 30:7
And David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech, I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David. (ASV)
But later Ahimelech is said to be the son of Abiathar:

2 Samuel 8:17
and Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were priests; and Seraiah was scribe; (ASV)
I think this was a source of confusion for early Christians. My guess is that "Mark's" (author) famous "Whosonfirst?" (how can David be father and son of the Messiah) which is based on and gives away a Greek and not Semitic setting, is referring to the above. Note that both are given in The House of God. The "who is my real father/family" theme.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Pseudo-Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian mss

laparola PsMark 16:9

omit verses 9-20] ‭א B 304 syrs copsa(ms) armmss geo1 geoA Clement Origen Eusebius Epiphanius1/2 Jerome Hesychius Victor-Antioch Ammonius-Alexandria Euthymius mssaccording to Eusebius mssaccording to Severus mssaccording to Jerome NRmg Rivmg
...
add verses 9-20 with note or sign] f1 22 138 205 264 1110 1210 1221 1582 2346 2812 al armmss
...

There may be two Greek mss, one Latin mss, one Syriac mss and so on, but there are hundreds of Armenian mss. The Armenians rejected the LE. In many mss with 16:9-20 there is a note "This is inauthentic", "This is an addition" or at 16:8 "Here is the end of Mark's gospel" and in one mss is a note "From the elder Ariston".

In 1895 :eek: F. C. Conybeare wrote a nice article about that: "On the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel" (pdf)
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by DCHindley »

So KK,

Thanks for the link to that article by F C Conybeare.

I read it over the weekend and got bogged down a bit in all the detail, but IIUC he thought that the long ending of Mark and a version of the pericope about the women caught in adultery (PA for fans) came from a commentary written by "Aristion the Elder," possibly drawing on the Gospel of the Hebrews. This author was anciently confused with John the Elder.

I guess FCC also suspected that Aristion the Elder was the editor who finished up an incomplete Mark to prepare it for publication as part of the four gospel collection. The four Gospel collection, besides giving Mark a sort of ending, also added the PA to John (although this pericope has happy feet and is sometimes located in John here or there, or even inserted in Luke IIRC).

Apparently Armenian translators of sacred books worked from a NT mss resembling Stephanus' 1550 eclectic text (the Greek text that underlies the KJV).

Apparently the Armenian version of the PA and the longer ending of Mark (where it is preserved) seems more primitive than the standard text. The PA in particular exists in a longer form in the Armenian gospel of John. It is very confusing.

Well, the wife calls me to buy and then lug bags of mulch.

Fun!

DCH
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:23 pm .
Pseudo-Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian mss

laparola PsMark 16:9

omit verses 9-20] ‭א B 304 syrs copsa(ms) armmss geo1 geoA Clement Origen Eusebius Epiphanius1/2 Jerome Hesychius Victor-Antioch Ammonius-Alexandria Euthymius mssaccording to Eusebius mssaccording to Severus mssaccording to Jerome NRmg Rivmg
...
add verses 9-20 with note or sign] f1 22 138 205 264 1110 1210 1221 1582 2346 2812 al armmss
...

There may be two Greek mss, one Latin mss, one Syriac mss and so on, but there are hundreds of Armenian mss. The Armenians rejected the LE. In many mss with 16:9-20 there is a note "This is inauthentic", "This is an addition" or at 16:8 "Here is the end of Mark's gospel" and in one mss is a note "From the elder Ariston".

In 1895 :eek: F. C. Conybeare wrote a nice article about that: "On the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel" (pdf)
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Tripartition of Mark 14:30

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:57 pm .
When a rooster crows in the Codex Regius L (019)

1) Matthew, Luke and John, all indicated that Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. Mark however, recorded Jesus’ prophecy as follows: “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times”. So does also the Fayyum-Fragment. In the Synoptics the story has three elements: Jesus predicts, the roster crows, Peter remembered.

The story MarkFayyum-fragment MatthewLuke John
Jesus predicts Peter’s denialMark 14:30 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.” J(esus)] [says, "Befo]re a cock cr[ows] twice, [thrice] [today you will] d[eny me ....]26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” 22:34 Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.”13:38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times.
The first crow in Mark14:68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed.
The crow of the rooster14:72 And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. 26:74 Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed.22:60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. 18:26-27 One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” 27 Peter again denied it, and at once a rooster crowed.
Peter remembered14:72 And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 26:75 And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” 22:61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.”

First, I wish to draw attention to three things
- In Mark’s prediction are three time-markers: today, this night, before the rooster crows twice. Matthew has only two: in this night before the rooster crows, Luke and John have only “today”.
- The wording of the prediction in Mark and Matthew is: “before the rooster crows ...you will deny me”, Luke and John have “the rooster will not crow ... , until you deny ...me.”
- Luke has some colourful additions in his story.


2) The textual problem starts with a look at the six oldest extant codices of Mark 14 (only the original scribes, not the correctors). There is only one codex which agrees completely in the main points with the usual text: Codex Alexandrinus. The later mss followed this tradition.

The usual text Codex Sinaiticus Codex Washingtonianus Codex Bezae Codex Ephraemi Codex Vaticanus Codex Alexandrinus
Mark 14:30 “Truly I tell you, today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.” only one crow 14:30 αμην λεγω σοι οτι σημερον ταυτη τη νυκτι πριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις με απαρνησηonly one crow 14:30 αμην λεγω οτι συ σημερον τη νυκτι ταυτη πριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις με αρνηση only one crow 14:30 αμην λεγω σοι οτι ταυτη τη νυκτει πριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις με απαρνησηonly one crow 14:30 αμην λεγω σοι οτι σημερον ταυτη τη νυκτι πριν η αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις με απαρνηση two crows 14:30 αμην λεγω σοι οτι συ σημερον ταυτη τη νυκτι πριν η δις αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις με απαρνησηtwo crows 14:30 αμην λεγω σοι οτι συ σημερον εν τη νυκτι ταυτη πριν η δις αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις απαρνηση με
14:68 ... And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed omitted the crow 14:68 και εξηλθεν εξω εις το προαυλιονomitted the crow 14:68 και εξηλθεν εις την εξω αυλην first crow 14:68 εξηλθεν εξω εις την προσαυλην και αλεκτωρ εφωνησενfirst crow 14:68 και εξηλθεν εξω εις το προαυλιον και αλεκτωρ εφωνη omitted the crow 14:68 και εξηλθεν εξω εις το προαυλιονfirst crow 14:68 και εξηλθεν εξω εις το προαυλιον και αλεκτωρ εφωνησεν
14:72 And immediately the rooster crowed a second time omitted "second time" 14:72 και ευθυς αλεκτωρ εφωνησενhas a second time 14:72 και ευθεως εκ δευτερου αλεκτωρ εφωνησεν has a second time 14:72 και ευθεως εκ δευτερου αλεκτωρ εφωνησενomitted "second time" 14:72 ε̣υ̣θς̣ αλεκτωρ εφωνησεν• has a second time 14:72 και ευθυς εκ δευτερου αλεκτωρ εφωνησενhas a second time 14:72 και εκ δευτερου αλεκτωρ εφωνησεν
14:72 And Peter remembered ... “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times. remembered one crow 14:72 πριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις με απαρνησηremembered one crow 14:72 πριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις με απαρνηση omitted the remembered saying 14:72 και ανεμνησθη ο πετρος το ρημα ο ειπεν ιηνremembered one crow 14:72 τι πριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις με απαρνηση remembered two crows 14:72 πριν αλεκτορα δις φωνησαι τρις με απαρνησηremembered two crows 14:72 πριν αλεκτορα φωνησαι δις απαρνηση με τρις


3) The wording of the variant readings in Mark are not harmonisations to Matthew (or Luke and John).

The wording in Matthew 26:34 and 26:75 is: “three (times) (you will) deny me
26:34 Ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρὶς ἀπαρνήσῃ με
26:75 Πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρὶς ἀπαρνήσῃ με

But in Mark it is “three (times) me (you will) deny”.
14:30 Ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι σὺ σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ πρὶν ἢ δὶς ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ.
14:72 Πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι δὶς τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ

All codices have the Markan wording “three (times) me (you will) deny” with the remarkable exception of the Codex Alexandrinus.


4) The questions are:

- Why do Matthew, Luke and John have just one crow?
- And why is there this hodgepodge in the early textual tradition of Mark?

My impression is that both things could be explained if there was in fact a big logical problem in Mark's Ur-text. If there was a prediction of two crows, but only one crow was mentioned.

Interestingly, such a reading exists in the Codex Regius L (019): Jesus predicts two crows, Peter remembered two crows, but only one crow is mentioned. The “first” crow in 14:68 is omitted and in 14:72 the “second time”. (And btw I think, that from Mark we would rather expect an “again” (πάλιν - palin) of the crowing and not a “second time” (εκ δευτερου).)

Codex Regius L
14:30 αμην λεγω σοι οτι συ σημερον ταυτη τη νυκτι• πριν η δις αλεκτορα φωνησαι τρις απαρνηση•
14:68 και εξηλθεν εξω εις το προαυλιον• 69 και η παιδισκη
14:72 και ευθυς αλεκτωρ εφωνησεν• και ανεμνησθη ο πετρος το ρημα ως ειπεν αυτω ο ις; οτι πρην αλεκτορα φωνησαι δις• τρις με απαρνηση•


JW:
14
28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.
29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.
30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, [even] this night, before the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice.
A few related comments:

1) Actually I think the Fayyum Fragment(FF) is the best witness for 14:30 (twice) since it is the earliest. Traditional Textual Criticism tends to avoid even mentioning the FF as evidence posturing that it is non-Manuscript because of lack of agreement with GMark NA. I think the real reason is because it lacks "Galilee" which is a huge problem if you accept 16:8 as the original end. Your demonstration above of the related Markan variation in the other best witnesses makes the differences between FF and GMark NA unreMarkable (yes Ben?).

2) "Mark" (author) has a style I know you agree with in general of doubles for negatives and triples for positives. Note that the key verse here:

"30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, [even] this night, before the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice."

Contains a positive and a negative:

Positive = Jesus' prophecy that Peter will deny him 3 times. In some of the best irony in GMark, while the Jewish leaders are making fun of Jesus and goading him into prophesying the other side of the split screen has Jesus' prophesy fulfilled with Peter's 3 denials. Confirmation of Jesus as Prophet.

Negative = Peter's denial will take place between 2 cock crows. Confirmation of Peter as Apostate. Our favorite author thus takes irony all the way to Heaven having confirmation of Jesus as Prophet and Peter as Apostate happen at the same time.

In an irony that I think the author of GMark would really appreciate it is the believers who generally don't appreciate the irony here because they want to minimize the failure of Peter and anachronize based on subsequent Christianity. Specifically, why the double is getting all edited here but not the triple, is because subsequent authors understood the triple positive and were fine with it but did not understand the double negative and didn't like it (they were fine with positive Jesus being presented with style but not with negative Peter being presented with style).


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Astonishing text variants in John 5:2

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Astonishing text variants in John 5:2 - Astonishingly well supported !!!

What do you think?

Is it the pool of „Bethesda“ or „Bethseda“ or „Bethzatha“ or „Bethzetha“ or „Belzetha“ or "Belzatha" or „Bethsaida“ or „Besaida“?

John 5:2 King James Version
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

"Bethesda" is the Byzantine reading. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, P66 und P75 have a different reading.

laparola
Βηθεσδά] A C E F G H K (N) Xcomm Δ Θ Π 078 0141 0233 f1 f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253vid 1292 1342 1344 1365 (1424) 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect itf itq vgmss syrc syrp syrh(gr)(mg) syrpal arm geo slav Diatessaron Amphilochius Didymusdub Chrysostom Cyrillem ς NR ND Riv Dio Nv

Βηθζαθά] ‭א (L ite Βηζαθά) 33 (itb itff2* vgmss Betzetha) (itl Betzata) (Eusebius) (Cyril) WH NA CEI TILC NM

Βελζεθά] D (ita Belzatha) itd itr1

Βηθσαϊδά] (see John 1:44) (p66* Βηδσαϊδάν) (p66(c) Βηδσαϊδά) p75 B T Wsupp (Ψ Βησσαϊδά) 0125 pc itaur itc itff2(c) vg syrh copsa coppbo copbo copach2 eth Diatessarons Tertullian Chromatius Jerome


Wieland Wilker wrote
TVU 63
32. Difficult variant
...
Witnesses:
Eusebius writes in his Onomastikon (ca. 324-330 CE):
"Bezatha, a pool in Jerusalem, which is the sheep [pool] formerly having five porches. It is now identified with the twin pools, both are supplied by the periodic rains, but the water of one is unexpectedly of a reddish color, a trace, they say, of the carcasses of the sacrifices which were formerly cleansed in it before offering, whence also it was called sheep [pool]."

The Pilgrim of Bordeaux writes (333 CE):
"Within the city are the twin pools [piscinae gemellares], with 5 porticoes, called Betsaida. There persons who have been sick for many years are cured. The pools contain water which is red when it is disturbed [in modum coccini turbatam]."

Cyrill of Jerusalem writes (Hom. in Paralyt. ca. 348-386):
"In Jerusalem there was a sheep pool with five porticoes, four running around it, but the fifth being in the middle of it. In it were lying a lot of sick."

Jerome's translation of Eusebius' Onomasticon (ca. 390 CE):
"Bethsaida piscina in Ierusalem quae uocobatur probatikh,. haec quinque quondam porticus habuit, ostendunturque gemini lacus, quorum unus hibernis pluuiis adimpleri solet, alter mirum in modum rubens quasi cruentis aquis antiqui in se operis signa testatur. nam hostias in eo lauari a sacerdotibus solitas ferunt, unde et nomen acceperit."
(Jerome accepts Bethsaida in his Vulgata.)

Theodor of Mopsuestia († 428) writes regarding the pool (Comm. in Evang. Johannis, Catena, see Jeremias, p. 13-14):
"Because besides the four running around, it had another in the middle."

Bethsaida ("House of Fish") is a city on the Sea of Galilee. Probably an early error. But Hort thinks "a tank hewn in the rock might naturally bear the name." The support for Bethsaida is surprisingly strong. That such an error can occur can be seen in the Byzantine minuscule 2737, which also reads thus. Also possibly E*.

Bethesda means in Hebrew "House of Mercy". Though widely supported, it is also suspect as a scribal alteration, because of its "edifying etymology" (Metzger). Alleged support got Bethesda from the Copper Scroll from Qumran, which in the ed. pr. contains a reference to a pool at "bebeyt 'eschdatayin" ("place of poured out [water]") or "bebeyt ha'aschuchiyn" ("place of the (two) pools"). The NET Bible comments: There is some new archeological evidence (published by M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux in Les “petites grottes” de Qumran): Copper scroll 3Q15 from Qumran seems to indicate that in the general area of the temple, on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, a treasure was buried in Bet *Esdatayin, in the pool at the entrance to the smaller basin. The name of the region or pool
itself seems then to have been Bet *Esda, “house of the flowing.” It appears with the dual ending in the scroll because there were 2 basins. Bhqesda. seems to be an accurate Greek rendition of the name, while Milik suggests Bhqzaqa. is a rendition of the Aramaic intensive plural Bet *Esdata. All of this is not entirely certain, but is certainly plausible; if Milik is correct, both the textual variants would refer to the same location, one a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name, the other a Greek rendering of the Aramaic. This would be an unusual instance where two textual traditions which appear to be in conflict would both be correct."

But according to a new reconstruction of the Copper Scroll published in 2006 (ref. below), the line in question only mentions some sort of installation (building) with two reservoirs, but contains no proper name.

Bezetha is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October A.D. 68. He mentions the name Bezetha, 5 times in his History of the Jewish War (2:328 = II 15:5, 2:530 = II 19:4, 5:149 = V 4:2, 5:151 = V 4:2, 5:246 = V 5:8). The name
occurs in several spellings (Bezetha,, Bezatha.). He explains the name in 5:151: "This newly built part of the city was called 'Bezetha' in our language, which, if interpreted in the Greek language, may be called 'the New City'." This area is north of the tower Antonia.


The external evidence is curiously divided. Unfortunately the most suspect reading is supported by the best witnesses.

An interesting fact is that if one changes two letters in Bethesda, one is getting Bethseda, which sounds the same as Bethsaida in Koine pronunciation (if one does not know the correct diaeresis pronunciation). Bethseda is actually supported by the (Byz) manuscript 582. Perhaps this contributes to the origin of Bethsaida? I don't see that the etymology is a strong argument against Bethesda. It could very well be that the pool or place had that name.

For the UBS committee the reading Bathzatha was the least unsatisfactory reading.

In view of the many hospitals and sanatoria bearing the name Bethesda I think the place and the incident will always be remembered as Bethesda, whatever else the critical editions print.

The location of the pool was for a long time not clear:

1. Prior to archeological digs, the pool of Bethesda was identified with the Pool of Israel, close to the northern temple wall. This was the dominant tradition of the late middle ages.

2. Others identified it with the Siloah spring, which is the one true spring in Jerusalem. It seems to be an intermittend spring, which could explain the moving water. But compare Jo 9:7, where John explicitly mentions the Siloah pool, why then not in 5:2 also?

3. In digs conducted in the late 19th century, a large cistern situated about 100 feet north-west of St. Anne's church was discovered (between the Pool of Israel and the northern wall, in the Bezetha valley). Most of the associated building has disappeared, but it would seem to have been a church of perhaps the fourth or fifth century. In addition to the testimony of the ruins to the sacredness of the site, various objects were found among the rubbish, indicating that this was a place where cures had been supposed to occur. Especially noticeable was the marble model of a foot with a Greek inscription which had been placed there by one Pompeia Lucilia in thankfulness for the cure of some disease (ca. 120-140 CE!). In later digs (ca. 1914-38), archaeologists unearthed a rectangular pool with a portico on each side and a fifth one dividing the pool into 2 separate compartments. The pool was about 90 m long and 50/65 m wide. The dividing portico was about 6,5 m wide. The pillars were about 7 m high and the complete building about 8.5 m. The above mentioned cistern was located next to this portico and was probably part of a church. Also found were faded frescoes of the miracle of Christ's healing. This pool is matching Cyrill's description. Lying in the Bezetha valley, it was well suited to collect the rainwater. Its position next to the temple suggests a cultic function. It is possible that it had been built under Herod the Great during the temple expansion. Perhaps at the position of an earlier pool, which was called sheep-pool? Problematic is the fact that a "sheep-pool" is nowhere mentioned in the non-Christian literature. It has been suggested that sheep-pool meant that the pool was close to the Sheep Gate or Market. The Sheep Gate is not exactly located, but was in the north-eastern corner of the wall (Neh 3:1, 3:32, 12:39). It was called the Sheep Gate because it led out to the sheep markets, where lambs were sold for sacrifice in the Temple.

...

Rating: 1? or - (NA probably wrong or indecisive)
slight tendency to accept Bethesda

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Wilker says it without saying it.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:19 am Wieland Wilker wrote
Unfortunately the most suspect reading is supported by the best witnesses.

internal evidence - lectio difficilior (more difficult reading)
external evidence - best witnesses (P66, P75, Vaticanus, Washingtonianus, Pilgrim of Bordeaux)

This speaks neither for NA/UBS nor for TR.

It looks like the variants could be classified in three main groups:
- the Esda variant (from Beth-Esda and subvariants)
- the Zatha/Zetha variant (from Beth-Zatha, Beth-Zetha, Be-Zatha ...)
- the Saida variant (from Beth-Saida, Bess-Saida ...)

As Wilker noted, for each variant one can find a good reason why it could have arisen afterwards.
- the Esda variant as a scribal alteration, because of its "edifying etymology" from “house of mercy”.

- the Zatha/Zetha variant from “Bezatha” attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of Jerusalem. Eusebius (Onomastikon) has exactly the same greek wording: "Bezatha, a pool in Jerusalem, which is the sheep [pool] formerly having five porches.”

- the Saida variant as a scribal error (from John 1:44). Wilker further argues: if one changes two letters in Bethesda, one is getting Bethseda, which sounds the same as Bethsaida in Koine pronunciation (mmh, rather similar than same).

However, the first two variants are not problematic. But if Bethsaida was the original reading, then it is easy to understand that it could be a stumbling block or was thought as an error.

Is it impossible? John has two Bethanys. Why than not two Bethsaidas?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
The nomina sacra for Jesus' name in the mss. of GMark

Because we are currently discussing nomina sacra of "Jesus", I'll give a brief overview of it.

1)
There are three types for the name "Jesus":

IS (IY in genitive and so on) - the dominant form (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Byzantin mss.)
- an abbreviation formed from the first and the last letter (ησοῦς); the last letter depends on the grammatical case

IH - Papyrus 45
- an abbreviation formed from the first two letters (Ἰησοῦς)

IHS (IHY in genitive) - Codex Bezae, P.Oxy. 76.5073
- an abbreviation formed from the first two and the last letter (Ἰησοῦς); the last letter depends on the grammatical case

2)
There is a famous case in Codex Sinaiticus, where in Mark 16:6 the name is not written as a nomen sacrum but in full: ϊηϲουν
SinaiMark16_6.jpg
SinaiMark16_6.jpg (16.95 KiB) Viewed 4516 times

P.S. The nomen sacrum ιησυ in Papyrus 37 (GMatthew 26:51) is also remarkable.

Pap37nomsacr.jpg
Pap37nomsacr.jpg (79.56 KiB) Viewed 4516 times
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Ludwig Traube, the emperor of all Nomina Sacra

Post by mlinssen »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:52 am .
The nomina sacra for Jesus' name in the mss. of GMark

Because we are currently discussing nomina sacra of "Jesus", I'll give a brief overview of it.

1)
There are three types for the name "Jesus":

IS (IY in genitive and so on) - the dominant form (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Byzantin mss.)
- an abbreviation formed from the first and the last letter (ησοῦς); the last letter depends on the grammatical case

IH - Papyrus 45
- an abbreviation formed from the first two letters (Ἰησοῦς)

IHS (IHY in genitive) - Codex Bezae, P.Oxy. 76.5073
- an abbreviation formed from the first two and the last letter (Ἰησοῦς); the last letter depends on the grammatical case

2)
There is a famous case in Codex Sinaiticus, where in Mark 16:6 the name is not written as a nomen sacrum but in full: ϊηϲουν

SinaiMark16_6.jpg


P.S. The nomen sacrum ιησυ in Papyrus 37 (GMatthew 26:51) is also remarkable.


Pap37nomsacr.jpg
Thank you Kunigunde, that indeed is the gist!

The absolute king and emperor of it all is Ludwig Traube of course - I just read your other comment and am now adding this: I only learned of Traube last week, and wish that I had some so much, much sooner

https://archive.org/details/nominasacra ... 6/mode/2up

Next to pointing out a dozen ligatures across a few hundred MSS, Greek as well as Latin, he also presents a thorough and critical analysis of them
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Mark 1:2

And you see the one in brightness
That in darkness drop from sight.

dbz wrote: Fri Sep 01, 2023 4:57 pm
The first quotation (Mk 1:2-3) does not come entirely from Isaiah the prophet, as Mark asserts. It is a composite reference to Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 which he connects to Isaiah the prophet. "Intertextual production of the Gospel of Mark". Wikipedia. 10 August 2023.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:10 amIn some manuscripts, I am told, Mark doesn't assert any such thing. Even where he does, the scope of his fact claim is unclear (the end of the block is indeed from Isaiah). IMO, Exodus is echoed because of the intratextuality of the Jewish Bible. Mark may be on the hook for misattributing Malachi's contribution, but Mark has no reasonable obligation to explain Malachi's use of Torah.

The comparison between the ESV and the KJV shows very clearly a well-known text variant in Mark 1:2 ("in Isaiah the Prophet" ↔ "in the prophets").

ESV KSV
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”
4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness ...
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, ...

Because of the older textual witnesses and the Difficult Reading Principle, the text critics prefer "in Isaiah the Prophet" in Mark 1:2. There's nothing really to say about that (unless you discuss it with Steven Avery ;) ).


Imho much more significant in Mark 1:2 is another, rather unknown textual uncertainty. It lies in the word “As” (“As it is written …”). The oldest textual witnesses (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) have "καθὼς" (according as, just as) here, while the overwhelming majority read only "ὡς" (as).

What is interesting about this text variant in Mark 1:2 that lies in the dark?

Chad Reeser ("Is the First Verse of Mark a Title?") wrote:

„... primarily because of the adverbial phrase καθὼς γέγραπται (Mk 1:2a), which is a “formula and quotation” that syntactically “always refer[s] back and never forward in the context.” Guelich reiterates that examples of the adverb καθώς have not been found which refer forward. The interpreter must concur with Guelich and Gundry that the adverbial phrase καθὼς γέγραπται (1:2a) indeed always looks back to the preceding material.“


I am therefore inclined to assume that the structure of the beginning of GMark is like this:

Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.

Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way!
The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight!

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness ...


One might think I am arguing this way to deny the famous contradiction. But that's just the result of following the best text witnesses and the meaning of "καθώς".
Post Reply