Evidences of a Second-Century Revised Edition of St Mark's Gospel
Most modern editions of the New Testament have in Mark x. 46 the following reading: κα ρχονται ες ’׀εριχ κα κπορευομνου ατο π ’׀εριχ κα τν μαθητν ατο κα χλου κανο νÒς Τιμαίου Bαρτίμαιος, τυφλς προσίτης, κάθητο παρ τν δν I do not think that there is any reason for not accepting this reading as the or...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic/Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
[1968]
|
| In: |
New Testament studies
Year: 1968, Volume: 14, Issue: 3, Pages: 321-355 |
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament |
| Further subjects: | B
Mark
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
| Summary: | Most modern editions of the New Testament have in Mark x. 46 the following reading: κα ρχονται ες ’׀εριχ κα κπορευομνου ατο π ’׀εριχ κα τν μαθητν ατο κα χλου κανο νÒς Τιμαίου Bαρτίμαιος, τυφλς προσίτης, κάθητο παρ τν δν I do not think that there is any reason for not accepting this reading as the original one (although we can never be quite sure). But several variants are as I think of great interest for the history of the text. To begin with, D supported by 61 258 481 and Origen (partly) has ρχεται instead of ρχονται and this reading is also presupposed in many Old Latin MSS. (a b d ff i r: uenit). This alteration, which has many analogies, corresponds with the following κπορευομνου. More important, however, is the continuation. There are many witnesses which instead of π ’׀εριχ have κεθεν. This variant is also to be found in D and Latin MSS (a b d f ff i q r: inde), and is moreover supported by ϴ and 700, although these MSS have κεθεν in another place, namely not until after the words τν μαθητν (ατο). Another MS with many interesting readings, 565, has first π ’׀εριχώ and then later, in spite of this, κεθεν. This last text is obviously a contamination of two readings, the original one with π ’׀εριχ and a revised one with κεθεν. For it is surely evident that κεθεν was put in as an amendment, in order to avoid the repetition of the town-name. The presupposition then of course is that the Vorlage had this repetition. That is of some interest, as the words κα ρχονται ες ’׀εριχ are missing in B prima manu (and 63). The revised text with κεθεν thus can even help us to reconstruct the original text, as it can be booked here as a witness against B. How the text of B* is to be explained is another question, but it is near at hand to think that this is another amendment in order to avoid the repetition and to get a more apt beginning for the pericope. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0028-6885 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: New Testament studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500001065 |