NA27 apparatus perplexity

From: Rod Decker (
Date: Mon Oct 09 1995 - 22:53:58 EDT

My students have found two perplexities in the NA27 apparatus of Mark that
have stumped me. Hopefully some of you can point me in the right direction.

1. Mark 8:13, apparatus contains a string of minuscule numbers separated by
periods (as usual), then the note 'pc' [a few others], and then the numbers
1241, 1424 --separated by commas. The questions are, why are these two
minuscules (at least I'm assuming that's what they are), 1) cited out of
sequence, 2) following the 'pc', and 3) separated by commas instead of

2. Mark 8:35 (this one is a bit more complex; I'll try to summarize)
The two variants are marked with: Represented below
        a. the right angle substitution bracket, and [apolesei
        b. the dotted oblique angle substitution brackets: <tHn psuchHn autou>

The two variants are not divided with the usual vertical line in the
apparatus, but instead are joined with 'et' [and]. The question is
basically, why the 'et' here? In more detail, if you have time, how is the
evidence to be sorted out?

More detail on #2 for those who have the time (I've used {MSS} to represent
the evidence cited without trying to represent it all here; \ for the
vertical broken line; and | for the solid vertical line):

The apparatus reads somewhat as follows:
[-sH {MSS} 'et' <tHn eautou psuchHn {MSS} \ autHn {MSS} \ - {MSS} \ txt {MSS} |

The first is obviously the substitution of apolesH for apolesei. The next
three sections are the various substitutions for tHn psuchHn autou. The
last I assume is the evidence for 'txt'--presumably just for the <tHn
psuchHn autou> portion?

That would mean that the evidence for apolesei is only to be inferred from
the constant witness list by subtracting those witnesses cited for another
variant (A L W) and those that are not extant at 8:35 (25 uncials). That
leaves the evidence for apolesei as follows: aleph, B C D K gamma delta
theta 0214 f1 f13 28 565 579 700 892 1241 1424 2542 lect844 lect2211.

My perplexity is what is the relationship between this variant and the
three following that seems to be implied by the 'et' rather than the usual
|. I would assume that there is some reason for the unusual format. Any
help will be appreciated.


Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
                                        Kansas City, Missouri 64147

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:29 EDT