Subject: Re: Mark 1:41

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:03:02 -0500 (EST)

Looking at Mark 1:41, I think a fair synopsis of the issue is as follows:

Reading #1 - with compassion
Reading #2 - with anger
Reading #3 - word omitted

I. The external evidence is very heavily in favor of reading #1.

Reading #1 is found in Aleph, A, B, C, K, L, W, Theta, Delta, and a host of
other MSS. 

Reading #2 is only found in D and some Latin readings. 

Reading #3 is in one Latin text (not all MSS cited for each reading, but you
get the picture). 

Therefore, "with compassion" has the most, the earliest, and the most
geographically widespread evidence.

II. The internal evidence is more subjective and more mixed. Here follows
some brief bullets:

1. shorter reading  - reading #3
2. more difficult - reading #2
3. Matches author's style/vocab - reading #1 (the word occurs 3x in Mark,
reading #2, not at all elsewhere in Mark)
4. fits the context/theology of the author - Any of the readings. Reading #1
fits our overall picture. Reading #2, however, may be in line with verse 43
where Jesus addresses the man sternly. (The question here though is whether
verse 41 wasn't changed by attraction to verse 43 later). Reading #3
obvoiusly presents no problems at all in this regard.
5. Less harmonious with parallel passages - reading #2
6. Best potential source of other readings - Reading #3

I would welcome comments on these points. However, I am particularly
interested in thoughts on the art/science of weighing the various pieces of
evidence when coming to a decision. I'm not so concerned with the right
answer as I am in hearing how different people have come to their decisions
on what it is.

Thanks,

Kevin Grenier

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:07:07 -0700

>I. The external evidence is very heavily in favor of reading #1.

I think we need to look at the external evidence a little differently.
This list omitted some important data.

Reading #1 is found in Aleph A B C L W Delta Theta fam 1 fam 13
  33 579 892 2427 Byz aur c e f l q vg sin pesh hark pal sa bo arm geo
Reading #2 is found in D a d ff2 r1
Reading #3 has trivial support (b and a lectionary)

Thus reading #1 is Alexandrian (Aleph B C L Delta 33 579 892 2427 sa bo), 
   "Caesarean" (Theta fam 1 fam 13 28 565 arm geo),
   Byzantine (A E G K Pi etc.)
   -- and has support of the African Latin (e), plus some other
      later Latin witnesses
Reading #2 is "Western," but really has support only of the European
Latin tradition.
Reading #3 is probably accidental.

>1. shorter reading  - reading #3

Not really. "The shorter reading" does not apply in cases like this.
#3 is accidental, and "the shorter reading" does not apply in such
cases.

>5. Less harmonious with parallel passages - reading #2

Looking at the Aland synopsis, I would say that *either* #1 or
#2 is less harmonious. According to SQE13, page 59, *neither*
Matthew nor Luke has a verb here. Thus #3 is the harmonizing
reading. (Though I still think it's an error. :-)

>6. Best potential source of other readings - Reading #3

??? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see it. I
don't see any reading as the obvious source of the other readings.

Now for my conclusions: The internal evidence is, at best,
neutral. So the decision is made on external evidence. Reading #1
has the support of the *entire* Alexandrian and "Caesarean" texts.
It has strong "Western" support, too. I say it's original.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)