Subject: Mark 1:41

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:11:03 PST

In the Greek mss before the tenth century we have readings KAI 
SPLAGCNISQEIS in 01 (Sinaiticus), 03 (Vaticanus),  and 892, KAI
ORGISQEIS in 05 (D), SPLAGCNISQEIS DE O IS in 019, and
O DE IS SPLAGCNISQEIS in 02 (Alexandrinus), 04, 07, 09, 0ll,
017, 021, 030, 031, 032, 034, 037, 038, 041, 043, 045, 047, 0211, 
399, 461, 565, 566, 1080, 1424, 1500, 2142, 2224, 2500 (and
< >nisqeis in 33, and larger lacunae in 013, 022, 024, 044). My 
university library has misplaced our colorphoto reproduction of 03
and we do not have the earlier photocopies, so I cannot now speak
to its exact arrangement, which may affect the following analysis. I 
would be grateful for the lineation in question if any of you have a 
copy of a photographic reproduction of 03.
     Note that SPLAGCNISQEIS fills a whole line in 01 and 019 (here 
it would be valuable to know about 03 also). We can account for the
omission of the participle in some Latin mss as resulting from an 
eyeskip by a copist working with a ms like 01 (i.e., he left out a 
line). We can also account for the transposition as between 019 and 
02, etc., in the same way, i.e., once the participle was omitted and 
the omission was remarked on in the margin of some ms, a copyist put 
it back in the wrong place (it is very common when we have readings 
xy and yx to find mss that have only x or only y).
     We might then speculate that ORGISQEIS in the left column of 05 
("iratus" in the right column) was an unlucky attempt to correct the 
omission of SPLAGCNISQEIS. But such speculation is unnecessary, unless 
we are also willing to suppose that Mark wrote ORGISQEIS because he had 
no idea of how Jesus healed, and his error was replaced by someone 
who knew. I am familiar with the reasoning about the readings set out 
by Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New 
Testament, 1975 ed. It takes no account of the nature of Jesus' 
healing by the power of the Spirit either, but then 1975 is a long 
time in the past. On March 15-17 I attended the course "Spirituality 
and Healing in Medicine" offered in Los Angeles by the Department of 
Continuing Education of Harvard Medical School (the course had been 
offered in Boston this year and last, and will be offered next year 
in Texas). Richard Friedman PhD reported an experiment in which an 
anaesthetist stood at the bedside and spoke only briefly and 
impersonally to some patients, but sat down by other patients, took 
them by the hand, and established a caring relationship with them. 
The second group came through their operations better than the first
by a statistically significant percent. Many will find these results 
unsurprizing. (I am reminded of a remark made twice over by Herbert 
Benson MD, the organizer of the course and a leader in the research 
there reported: when first he announced what he intended to do, more
than one of his colleagues said, "Herb, what took you so long?") One 
of the faculty for the course was the publisher of the writings of 
Mary Baker Eddy, who long ago wrote in Science and Health, "Did the 
careless doctor, the nurse, the cook, and the brusque business 
visitor sympathetically know the thorns they plant in the pillow of 
the sick and the heavenly homesick looking away from earth, -- Oh, 
did they know! -- this knowledge would do much more towards healing 
the sick and preparing their helpers for the `midnight call,' than 
all cries of `Lord, Lord!' The benign thought of Jesus, finding 
utterance in such words as `Take no thought for your life,' would 
heal the sick, and so enable them to rise above the supposed 
necessitry for physical thought-taking and doctoring; but if the un- 
selfish affections be lacking, and common sense and common humanity 
are disregarded, what mental quality remains, with which to evoke 
healing from the outstretched arm of righteousness? . . . If the 
[Christian] Scientist has enough Christly affection to win his own 
pardon, and such commendation as the Magdalen [as she has since been 
called] gained from Jesus [at Simon the Pharisee's house] then he is 
Christian enough to practice scientifically and deal with his 
patients compassionately; and the result will correspond with the 
spiritual intent" (pp. 364-365, part of the chapter "Christian 
Science Practice").
   (I repeat my offer to send a copy of this useful book to  
interested persons.)
     My point here is that when analyzing the biblical texts, we must 
not set aside our knowledge of God and His goodness, as proven by 
Moses, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and people like ourselves,
nor ignore the laws of healing laid down and exemplified in our texts, -- 
exemplified still in widespread experience today. Indeed, when it is 
apropos, we should apply that knowledge at the beginning, and then
perhaps find supplementary support in the usual rules of textual 
criticism.  
     Vinton A. Dearing