Thu Apr 4 22:33:38 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr  4 22:33:38 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA25784; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:33:38 +0500
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:30:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Mk 3:32
In-Reply-To: <960404170212_369129833@emout06.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3374
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:

> "kai hai adelphai sou" is omitted by a good range of Alexandrian, Byzantine
> and Western (!) mss. in Mark 3:32.  It is found in a few mss of different
> families (!).

It is not included by a very broad range of witnesses from all texttypes. 
Its inclusion (UBS3) in 2 uncials, 9 minuscules, a divided old latin
community and a few lectionaries and minor versions does not exactly
commend itself, especially when one of the uncials which include it (A) is
a normally Byzantine entity which has departed from the fold.  The second
uncial (D) is a Western entity which reflects about half of the Western
tradition, but no more. 

One thing is certain: the longer reading cannot reflect harmonization to
the Matthean or Lukan parallels, since those parallels similarly omit the
mention of sisters, even within the same MSS which in Mark contain the sister
reference. 

> So, would the participants of this forum describe this as a theological
> omission, or a simple case of parablepsis? 

A presumptive case can indeed be made for omission of the clause "and your
sisters" by simple parablepsis aggravated by homoioteleuton. Indeed, were
the external evidence reversed, that is precisely how I would argue the
case.  However, since the vast majority of MSS (comprising the Byzantine,
Alexandrian, Caesarean and even Western texttypes) are the ones containing
the shorter text as opposed to the longer reading, I cannot use the
transcriptional argument here to suggest accidental omission. 

Since no parallels occur which include the words, deliberate copying from
a parallel passage is similarly ruled out.  I can only suggest the
possibility that the addition of this clause was made for balance, in
order to make the mention of sisters coincide with Jesus' later statement
in verse 35 which includes the mention of sisters.  This is "harmonization
to the immediate context" and likely explains why no similar addition
occurs among the MSS in the Matthean parallel, the addition being 
peculiar to Mark.  

That the uncials A and D as well as the 9 minuscules mentioned owe their
common reading here to one or more lost archetypes seems certain.  I
suspect that those archetypes stem from the old latin, and that this type
of reading is symptomatic of the "uncontrolled popular text" of the early 
centuries, which has left its sporadic traces through the centuries and 
has infected a small number of surviving MSS which are otherwise more 
normally Byzantine in character.

I note also that Mk's v.35 also concurs with the final statement in the
Matthean pericope, since both includes sisters.  Luke's closing statement,
on the other hand, has no mention of sisters, which agrees with his former
statement. I see no theological bias or other outside reason for the
deliberate addition of the clause in Mark; only a harmonization to the
immediate context. I do presume that the longer reading is secondary and
that the shorter reading in this situation is original; I doubt that many 
eclectic critics will argue otherwise.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back