From: Clayton Bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Oct 22 1997 - 07:59:10 EDT
Jeffery Gibson wrote:
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?
Westcott and Hort and their contemporary disciples generally
consider an agreement between Aleph* and B as strong support for
any reading. Compound this with the fact that there is an explanation
(agreement with Mt and Lk) for the variant in Alpeh2 A C D ... Maj and
you have no contest.
I don't think A or D are considered to be particularly reliable in the
Gospels. A is considered a member of the Byzantine text type where
it is extant in the Gospels. The rest of A is considered to be of the
Alexandrian text type. In the Apocalypse A is considered an
important witness but the text of the Apocalypse is not as well
attested as the gospel of Mark. D is a manuscript that requires a
detailed description but it is sufficient for our current purpose to
say that is considered to be a *strange* manuscript.
In summary, I don't think your *second* reading has what would be
considered "strong support" if you are a member of the Westcott and
Hort ... G. Fee, K. Aland school of thought. Now if you are from the
Majority Text crowd, then the agreement of A with Maj might be
important to you.
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:33 EDT