textual variant in Mk 14:38

Jeffrey Gibson (jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu)
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:26:18 -0500 (CDT)

A Text Critical Question:

As might be known, there is a slight variant in the text of Mk.
14:38. Sinaiticus, B f13 565, the text reads GRHGOREITE KAI
PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIJ PEIRASMON. But Sinaitcus2 A C D L
W Theta Psi 0012.0016 f1 and other witnesses, it reads GRHGOREITE
KAI PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH EISELQHTE EIJ PEIRASMON (note the slight
change in the verb after hINA MH). The second reading is in
correspondence with Matt. 26:41//Lk. 22:40 and looks as if could be
explained as assimilation to the Matthean and Lukan parallels. But
the textual witness on its behalf seem too strong. Or, am I wrong
in this? Are Sinaiticus and B and f13 usually thought to be
superior to Sinaitcus2 A C D L W Theta Psi etc? Is the explanation
of assimilation of Mark to Matt//Lk correct?

I obviously don't know enough about the weight given to these
witnesses to answer this myself, so I'm seeking the wisdom of the
list.

Yours

Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu