MARKed - astonishing text variants

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Mark 2:13
Wieland Willker and laparola have no minor variant
"all" agree on that text:
Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.
And he went forth again beside the sea and all the crowd came to him and he taught them.
But let's have a look at the Sinaiticus
Καὶ ἐξῆλθον πάλιν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτούς, καὶ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.
And they went forth again into the sea and all the crowd came to them and he taught them.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Charles Wilson »

Thank you very much for this KK.

This is a vote for Sinaiticus being the slightly earlier version. Why? 'Cause both versions are correct in their descriptions although one is more complete than the other.

I've mentioned this several times before and since no one has commented on this point, I'll repeat it: "From the fact that the Gospels were written about "Jesus" from Source Document(s), it does not follow that those Source Documents were also about "Jesus" ". Obviously, if you are not a "Source" kind of person, there is no fact the the Gospels were written from Source. If you are, I invite you to consider the alternative that the Source Documents were concerned with something completely different.

Suppose we have a job given to us to rewrite a Story about the Priests of the Jerusalem Temple. We have an outline and the end result will be that we will fashion a New Narrative about what happened from the Story of the Priests. We want to feature one of the Priests to show various details that point away from the Original Story (which we got from a Booty Call from the Legions in Judea) and point it towards this new guy.. Since there are Priests involved, it makes sense to set the Symbolism to seeing the crowds of people as "the Sea" and rewriting the Temple and Antonia as...a boat or something.

The first rewrite sees the Priests as preaching to the people "into the sea" and that seems just fine. However, we are forming this idea that this should be a man...no, a savior/god and we can simply change a word or two to get to "He...", "...on the shore...", etc..

Both are technically correct but one betrays its origins by using "They".

CW
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Peter Kirby »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Mark 2:13
Wieland Willker and laparola have no minor variant
"all" agree on that text:
Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.
And he went forth again beside the sea and all the crowd came to him and he taught them.
But let's have a look at the Sinaiticus
Καὶ ἐξῆλθον πάλιν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτούς, καὶ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.
And they went forth again into the sea and all the crowd came to them and he taught them.
Nice find.

I would translate the "εἰς" in Sinaiticus with the English word "to" or "towards," not "into." There is no need to imagine "them" knee-deep in the water (or, worse, gliding on top of it) without so much of a hint of this in the text other than the use of an equivocal Greek preposition.

This verse immediately follows:

Mark 2:12: And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out (ἐξῆλθεν) before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Maybe the repetition of the concept of "him" going out/forth (ἐξῆλθεν) was enough to cause confusion. (As in, he'd just gone forth, no need to repeat it?) This could have led to a "scribal error" reading of this kind.

The idea that "they" had done this "again" (πάλιν) is odd (but not in a way that suggests the originality of the Sinaiticus reading, IMO).

The "again" seems to refer back to Mark 1:16 (which would imply that the original text, logically, had the non-Sinaticus reading):

And passing along by the Sea of Galilee (παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν), he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.

Do you have any ideas about which may have been the more original reading?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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 »

Peter Kirby wrote:This verse immediately follows:

Mark 2:12: And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out (ἐξῆλθεν) before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Maybe the repetition of the concept of "him" going out/forth (ἐξῆλθεν) was enough to cause confusion. (As in, he'd just gone forth, no need to repeat it?) This could have led to a "scribal error" reading of this kind.

The idea that "they" had done this "again" (πάλιν) is odd (but not in a way that suggests the originality of the Sinaiticus reading, IMO).

The "again" seems to refer back to Mark 1:16 (which would imply that the original text, logically, had the non-Sinaticus reading):

And passing along by the Sea of Galilee (παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν), he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.

Do you have any ideas about which may have been the more original reading?
Yesterday I found it more interesting than today :mrgreen: It was hard for me to imagine how "that scribal error" in Sinaiticus could happen. But your ideas about that sound good.

Another early papyrus, Papyrus 88 agree with the majority (You can load the transcription with the sidebar.)
κα̣ι̣ εξηλ-
θ̣εν παλ̣ι̣ν παρ[α τη]ν̣ θαλασσαν̣ [κ]αι
πας ο̣ ο̣χλος η̣[ρχετ]ο προς αυτ̣[ο]ν̣ και
εδιδα̣σκ̣εν αυ̣[το]υ̣ς
The phrase "ἔρχομαι πρὸς" (coming to) is often repeated in Mark. The way Mark used that phrase made me feel that there is an overtone of faith (positive) or judgement or challenge (negative). All come to Jesus (asking for help or trying to dispute with him) or Jesus comes to them. The exception - if I have not overlooked something - is Mark 9:14 in NA and UBS (after the transfiguration) when "they" (Jesus, Peter, James and John) having come to the disciples (ἐλθόντες πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς). But here the majority of the mss has "ἐλθὼν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς" ("he having come to the disciples" - copbo ita vg A C D itb itd itff2 iti syrp geo2 N Σ 067vid itf eth itq syrh itaur E itl F G H Θ 33 565 Lect slav 1424 28 700 1006 1243 157 180 1010 1071 1241 1505 itc 579 597 1292 205 ς Dio ND f1 f13 Byz).

So I think that the phrase "the crowd came to them" in Sinaiticus could be outside of Mark's program and therefore not original.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Charles Wilson »

Peter Kirby wrote:There is no need to imagine "them" knee-deep in the water (or, worse, gliding on top of it) without so much of a hint of this in the text other than the use of an equivocal Greek preposition.
Funny you should mention that...:

Matthew 14: 28 - 30 (RSV):

[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;
[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."

PK, I know you don't accept just about anything I write but here is a good example of seeing what I've been riffing on lately. The Gospel Stories are about "Jesus". The Source(s) for these Stories are about something else. "WE don't have to imagine "them" knee-deep in the water..." but we do have to imagine Peter knee-deep in the water and there is a reason. Both Stories are from the same location and the events they describe are probably no more than 12 hours apart.

A ditch surrounds Antonia and Antonia's magnificence of appearance lends itself to being Symbolized as a "Boat". You don't have to accept this except insofar as you want to examine the Thesis for consistency. I sure you won't accept the Symbolic Assignment made. You say, however that there is no need to assume the populace surrounding "Jesus" as either knee-deep in the water or walking on the water. The worshipers at this Passover were doing just that (giving a small bit of Poetic License for walking on the water...).

Such is the Measure of the Transvaluation that this idea cannot even be considered.

Best...

CW
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Blood »

It would be great if somebody did a "synoptic" of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus's versions of Mark. There must be lots of small but interesting variants like this that would be more noticeable if "seen together."
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Peter Kirby »

Blood wrote:It would be great if somebody did a "synoptic" of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus's versions of Mark. There must be lots of small but interesting variants like this that would be more noticeable if "seen together."
It's been done. It's part of the Bibleworks package (version 9, anyway).

For the Gospel of Mark (and the rest of the New Testament, to the extent that these manuscripts include those texts), you get Sinaiticus (Aleph), Vaticanus (B), Alexandrinus (A) along with Bezae (D), Washingtonensis (W), and 1141 (a "Byzantine" ms.) and also compared with the editions "nu" (Nestle-Aland/UBS), "sc" (Scrivener), "rp" (Robinson Pierpont), "tg" (Tregelles), and "wh" (Westcott-Hort). Disagreements are highlighted with words set in parallel columns. The manuscripts themselves are shown in images also.

http://www.bibleworks.com/bw9help/bwh10 ... ject01.htm
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Blood »

Looks good. I wish I had $359.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
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 11:20
laparola has no minor variant attested and allmost all mss agree on this text:
Καὶ παραπορευόμενοι πρωὶ εἶδον τὴν συκῆν ἐξηραμμένην ἐκ ῥιζῶν.
11:20 And they passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree having been dried up from roots.
But let's have a look at the Sinaiticus
Image
Καὶ παρεπορεύετο πρωῒ εἶδον τὴν συκῆν ἐξηραμμένην ἐκ ῥιζῶν.
And he passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree having been dried up from roots.
The problem starts in Mark 11:19
And when evening came, he went forth out of the city.
And when evening came, they went forth out of the city.
laparola Mark 11:19
ἐξεπορεύοντο ἔξω τῆς πόλεως - A B K M (W 28 ἐξεπορεύοντο after πόλεως) Δ Π Ψ 0233 28 124 565 700 1009 1071 1079 2427 al itaur itc itd itr1 vgmss syrp syrh(mg) (arm) geo1 WHtext NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
ἐξεπορεύετο ἔξω τῆς πόλεως - ‭א C (D ἐκ τῆς) E G H N X Θ Σ (f1 205 ἐξεπορεύετο after πόλεως) f13 33 157 180 579 597 892 1006 (1010 ἐπορεύετο) 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect ita itb itf itff2 iti itk itl itq vg syrs syrh syrpal copsa copbo goth eth geo2 slav ς WHmg ND Dio
Wieland Wilker writes about Mark 11:19
TVU 243
111. Difficult variant

„In the previous verses Jesus alone is mentioned. In the following verse 20 the plural participle is used. It is therefore possible that the immediately preceding context lead to the change to the singular. Note that 01* changed even in verse 20 into the singular. It is also possible that some scribes associated the „ἐξεπορεύοντο“ with the previously mentioned subject „ὄχλος“ which took the singular. Note that some manuscripts have in verse 18 the plural „ἐξεπλήσσοντο“: 01, M, D, 579, 892, 1424, 2542, al.

So, one or the other could be either a conformation to the previous verses or to the following verse. The support is curiously divided, suggesting a multiple origin of the reading(s). Difficult.
Compare similar cases at 1:29, 3:20, 3:31, 5:1, 5:38, 8:22, 9:14, 9:33
Minor cases: 10:46(D, 788, it, Sy-S), 11:27 (D, X, 565, it), 14:32(Q, 1, 565)

Rating: - (indecisive)
I tend to think that the reading of Mark 11:20 in Codex Sinaiticus is original.
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 13:10
καὶ εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτον δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
And to all the nations first it behoves to proclaim the gospel
laparola
πρῶτον δεῖ] ‭אc B D Ψ 28 892 pc vg WH
δεῖ πρῶτον] A L f1 f13 Byz itq syrh ς
πρῶτον δὲ δεῖ] W Θ 565 pc it syrp
πρῶτον λαὸν δεῖ] ‭א*
Perhaps the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus means
to all the nations - first (to the) Israelites
Comment
(laos) is the usual term for "the people of God" and thus typically used in the LXX (OT) and the Gospels, for believing Israel (Jews).
Post Reply