Home | Diagram – synoptic sources | synopsis |irrelevant agreements | deceptive agreements | influence of Q | textual corruption | the MS evidence | some residual cases | conclusion | list of MSS | (pages 293-332)
Since both Matthew and Luke consistently compress Mark, the occurrence not
infrequently of coincident omissions is only to be expected.
Mark's Greek is colloquial,
Matthew and Luke revise throughout in the direction of the literary idiom.
The results of independent correction of style and grammar must, in a long
document, occasionally coincide if the revision is sufficiently thorough.
Certain agreements, which, at first sight, are too striking to be attributed
to coincidence, are shown, on closer inspection, to be alterations that would
naturally occur to independent editors.
But, on any view, none of the agreements so far studied, being of the nature
of editorial improvements, can be explained by the hypothesis of an Ur-Marcus,
though they might be explained by Sanday's hypothesis that the text of Mark
used by Matthew and Luke had undergone a slight stylistic revision.
In passages where, on other grounds, we have reason to believe that Mark
and Q overlapped,
agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark may be explained by the influence
of Q;
but it is unscientific to invoke this explanation in other contexts.
The most probable explanation of the remaining agreements is to be sought
in the domain of Textual Criticism.
(1) Any corruption of the original text of Mark would leave Matthew and Luke
in agreement against Mark in any passage where they had happened both to
copy the text of Mark in its original form.
(2) Assimilation of parallel passages, wherever it occurred between Matthew and Luke, would be likely to create an Agreement against Mark.
(3) Since assimilation is the one form of corruption that is likely to occur independently in more than one line of manuscript tradition, the grouping of MSS. evidence in accordance with local texts is especially important. It is not the number of MSS. that support a given reading, but the local text or texts they represented, that matters.
A survey of all the significant Minor Agreements not previously discussed, reveals the fact that there is usually MS. evidence in favour of the view that the agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark did not occur in the original text of the Gospels, but is the result of scribal alteration, from which a few MSS. here and there have escaped.
Special discussion of the reading "Who is he that struck thee?" Mt.xxvi.68 = Lk.x.64.
The significance of agreements more minute than those examined above cannot be considered apart from the general fact of the abundance of such minutise of variation in all MSS., even between B and א.
The bearing of the above examples on the theory and practice of textual
criticism.
The dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark may be taken as an assured result,
which in doubtful cases may enable us to decide between rival variants in
different MSS.;
and is thus of material assistance in the determination of the true text
of the Gospels.
top
MANY years ago Dr. Sanday expressed the opinion that the solution of this
problem would be found in the sphere of Textual Criticism;
and from time to time Professors Burkitt and Turner have called attention
to facts pointing in this direction.
But, so far as I am aware, no consistent attempt has been made to explore
the question thoroughly in the light of the latest researches into the grouping
of MSS. and the history of the text.
Before, however, attempting to do this, I must elaborate the point made
in Chap. VII.,
that the majority of these agreements do not require any explanation at all.
Matthew and Luke, it must be realised,
were not mere scribes commissioned to produce an accurate copy of a particular
MS.;
they were historians combining and freely rewriting their authorities,
and, what for our immediate quest is even more important,
consistently condensing them.
From this certain consequences follow.
(1) Compression can only be effected by the omission of details regarded
as unimportant or of words and phrases deemed to be superfluous.
Hence it would have been quite impossible for two persons to abbreviate practically
every paragraph in the whole of Mark without concurring in a very large number
of their omissions.
In a diffuse style like that of Mark certain passages are so obviously redundant
that they would be dispensed with by any one desiring to be concise.
Coincidence in omission proves nothing as to the source used.
(2) Mark's native tongue was Aramaic and his Greek is quite the most colloquial
in the New Testament.
[The Greek of the Apocalypse is not so much colloquial as Semitic.]
The style and vocabulary of Matthew and Luke,
by reason of the subject treated and the sources used,
is naturally coloured to some extent by Semitic idiom;
but in the main they write the κοινή,
i.e. the ordinary Greek of the educated man of the period who was not of
set purpose trying to revive the Greek of the classical age.
What would happen if two such writers were working over the narrative of
Mark?
I may illustrate from a personal experience.
The late Professor Troeltsch sent me a literal translation, made in Berlin,
of an article of his in order that I might correct it for publication in
an English magazine.
Wherever I noticed a grammatical construction possible, but unusual;
a phrase, passable but not idiomatic;
a word understandable, but not the most appropriate—
I substituted what seemed the natural English expression.
Now in any language there are certain constructions and turns of expression
that come naturally to all educated men;
there are certain words which are the only appropriate ones in certain contexts.
Suppose that the article in question had been corrected, not by me, but by
the editor of the magazine, the passages that would have struck him as needing
correction would not have been exactly the same as those which struck my
notice, but they must have coincided to a considerable extent;
for it would be precisely the words or sentences which were most glaringly
unidiomatic which would be likely to attract the attention of us both.
The way in which he would have corrected them would in most cases have differed
slightly from mine, but in a minority of cases it would have been identical,
for the simple reason that there are certain standard differences between
the turns of expression naturally used in German and English sentences which
would cause any two Englishmen, aiming at making a translation more idiomatic,
to make precisely the same alteration.
Now Mark's Greek is that of a person who had been brought up to think in
Aramaic;
and I conceive that Matthew and Luke would have been on the look out to correct
his unidiomatic style much in the way I have described.
Hence, where the process of correction is carried on with a document of the
length of Mark's Gospel, it is impossible that two correctors should not
frequently concur in making the same or substantially the same alteration.
In Aramaic the verb is conjugated on a radically different principle from
the Greek;
it is peculiarly poor in the variety of particles, conjunctions, prepositions,
for the number and variety of which Greek is so conspicuous, and the construction
of sentences is far looser.
Hence changes intended to make the Semitic style of Mark more idiomatically
Greek would all be in the same general direction.
The HISTORIC PRESENT, for example, a fairly common idiom in Latin,
is comparatively rare in Greek, as it is in English;
but Mark uses it, apparently as the equivalent of the Aramaic PARTICIPLE, 151 times [Hawkins, Hor. Syn.3 p. 143 ff.].
Matthew cuts these down to 78,
Luke to 4.
Obviously, then, Matthew and Luke cannot but concur in the alteration of
tense upwards of 60 times,
though as they often change the word as well as the tense the resultant agreements
do not always strike the eye.
But the historic present most often used by Mark is λέγει;
the natural change of tense to the AORIST results in εἶπεν appearing
some 20 times in both Matthew and Luke—
thus creating to the eye of the English reader an appearance of agreement
against Mark which is quite illusory.
Another stylistic improvement made innumerable times by Matthew and Luke
is the substitution of δέ for καὶ;
what wonder if about 20 times they both do so in the same place?
[The Principles of Literary Criticism and the
Synoptic Problem, p. 17, E. de Witt Burton,
Chicago, 1904.]
Yet another of their most frequently recurring alterations is the substitution
of the favourite Greek construction of a participle with a finite verb for
the Semitic usage of two finite verbs connected with the conjunction καὶ.
Is it surprising that 5 times they happen to do so in the same context?
Mark, like the Old Testament writers, leaves the subject of the sentence
to be inferred from the context more frequently than would be quite natural
in Greek or in English.
Thus Matthew and Luke often make "he" or "they" clearer
by introducing a name or title.
And, as they do this often, it is inevitable that sometimes they should do
it in the same place;
for the places where they would wish to make the insertion would naturally
be those where the sense seemed specially to require the addition, and these
places would be fixed, not by their arbitrary selection, but by the degree
of obscurity in a particular context.
We need not, then, suspect collusion, if we occasionally find that Matthew
and Luke agree in inserting ὁ Ἰησοῦς οἱ μαθηταί οἱ ὄχλοι, οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, in
passages where these subjects can all be inferred from the context.
Yet another example of what I may call an "irrelevant agreement" of
Matthew and Luke against Mark arises from the use of the word ἰδοῦ.
Mark, for some reason or other, never uses this word in narrative;
Matthew uses it 33 times,
Luke 16.
No explanation, then, is required for the fact that 5 times they concur in
introducing it in the same context—
for obviously the number of contexts is limited where its use would be at
all appropriate.
top
The above constitute considerably more than half the total number of the
Minor Agreements we are discussing, and it goes without saying that they
have no significance whatever.
But there remain quite a number of cases where the coincidence of Matthew
and Luke does at first sight appear significant, but where further scrutiny
shows this to be a mistake.
Thus frequently, when Mark uses a word which is linguistically inadmissible,
the right word is so obvious that, if half-a-dozen independent correctors
were at work, they would all be likely to light upon it.
For example, Mark 4 times uses the verb φέρειν of
animals or persons, and every time Matthew and Luke concur in altering this
to ἄγειν or
some compound of ἄγειν. φέρειν,
like its English equivalent "carry," is properly used of inanimate
objects which one has to lift;
when speaking of a person or an animal that walks on its own legs the natural
word to use is ἄγειν,
the equivalent of the English verb "to lead."
Equally inevitable are corrections like κλίνη, θυγάτηρ,
and ἑκατοντάρχης for
the apparent vulgarisms κράββατον, θυγάτριον,
and κεντυρίων;
or the substitution of τετράρχης,
the correct title of the petty princelet Herod, for βασιλεύς,
which in educated circles was only used of historical characters or of the
reigning emperor.
Hardly less inevitable is the explanatory substitution by Matthew and Luke
of "Son of God" for "Son of the Blessed" in the high
priest's question to our Lord (Mk.xiv.61).
Even more necessary is the alteration twice made of μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας to τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ in
speaking of the Resurrection, since in strict Greek the former phrase might
seem to imply an extra day.
Lastly, seeing that the first four disciples were constituted of two pairs
of brothers, it is far more natural to mention Andrew next to Simon, as do
Matthew and Luke, than to name the sons of Zebedee, as Mark does, in between
those two.
But granted that this obvious improvement in the order occurred to Matthew
and Luke independently, then the addition by both of the words "his
brother" is almost inevitable.
I proceed to consider some further Agreements of a more striking character, which nevertheless I believe are really deceptive.
| Mark.ii.12. | Matthew.ix.7. | Luke.v.25. |
|---|---|---|
| ἐξῆλθεν ἐμπροσθεν πάντων | ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ | ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ |
A coincidence like this in five consecutive words seems at first sight to
belong to a different category from the single word agreements so far discussed.
But it is instructive as illustrating the fallacy of merely counting words
or considering extracts without a study of the context.
The only real coincidence between Matthew and Luke is that both of them are
at pains to bring out more clearly than Mark that the man did exactly what
our Lord commanded him. In Mark this command runs,
Arise, take up thy bed and go to thy house.
Matthew proceeds,
And having arisen, he went away to his house.
Luke even more precisely:
Having stood up before them,
and having taken up what he lay on,
he went away to his house.
εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ is
simply the echo of Mark's εἰς τὸν οἶκον σοῦ.
The change from Mark's ἐξῆλθεν to ἀπῆλθεν is
even more inevitable.
Mark describes the scene from the spectator's point of view, the man went
out, and that was the last they saw of him, ἐξῆλθεν .
But if, with Matthew and Luke, you wish to say in Greek that a person left
one place for another with the emphasis on the destination, ἀπῆλθε is
the appropriate word. Very similar is the way they deal with the concluding
words of Mark's Gospel.
| Mark.xvi.8. | Matthew xxviii.8. | Luke xxiv.9. |
|---|---|---|
| οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. | μετὰ φόβου καὶ χαρᾶς μεγάλης ἐδραμον ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. | ἀπήγγειλαν ταῦτα πάντα τοῖς ἑνδεκα καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς λοιποῖς. |
If, as I believe, the text of Mark known to Matthew and Luke ended at this
point, as it does in א B Syr. S., they would be obliged to guess at the further
proceedings of the women.
The women had just been expressly commanded by an angel to give an important
message to the disciples;
it would never have occurred to Matthew or Luke that the women could have
failed to carry out the instructions.
Mark's words
they told no man
would certainly have been interpreted to mean "they did not spread
the news abroad," not "they did not deliver the message of the
angel."
But if Matthew and Luke took it for granted that the lost ending of Mark
told how the women carried out their orders, it was natural, by way of concluding
their account of the incident, to say as briefly as possible that they gave
the message.
But the words in which they do this coincide only in the verb ἀπαγγεῖλαι —the
natural word for any one to use.
Another still more illusory Agreement is the insertion (Mt.xxvi.50, Lk.x.48) of a word of Christ to Judas on receipt of the kiss of treachery. In Matthew He says,
Friend, do that for which thou art come;
in Luke,
Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss.
[Hor. Syn.2 p. 210 ff.] Surely the insertion at a moment like this of words of a tenor so totally different is a disagreement striking enough to outweigh many small agreements.
Among the twenty Agreements picked out by Sir J. Hawkins [Hor.
Syn 2 p. 210. ff] as most remarkable is the verb αὐλίζεσθαι,
(to lodge) (Mt.xxi.17, Lk.xxi.37).
The word is found nowhere else in the Gospels;
but this also seems to me to constitute a Deceptive Agreement for two reasons,
(a) The word occurs in passages inserted by Matthew and Luke into the Marcan
outline,
but the insertions are made in quite different contexts—
Matthew's after the Cleansing of the Temple ( = Mk.xi.15-19),
Luke's after the Apocalyptic discourse which corresponds to Mk.i.
(b) Matthew says our Lord lodged at Bethany, Luke that he lodged on the Mount
of Olives.
The disagreement in substance is so much more obvious than the concurrence
in a single by no means out-of-the-way word that it clearly points to independent
editing.
| Mark.iii.1. | Matthew .9-10. | Luke vi.6 |
|---|---|---|
καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἀνθρωπος ἐξηραμμένην ἐχων τὴν χεῖρα |
ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνθρωπος χεῖρα ἐχων ξηράν. |
ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ εἰσελθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ διδάσκειν: καὶ ἦν ἀνθρωπος ἐκεῖ καὶ ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ ἡ δεξιὰ ἦν ξηρά. |
I should hardly have thought this instance worth quoting but for the fact that Prof. Burton [Op cit. p. 17.] includes it as one of the 15 Minor Agreements, which appreciably affect the sense.
The text is not beyond dispute.
All Greek MSS. except B א and
one cursive insert τὴν in
Mark as well; also ξηράν is read in place of ἐξηραμμένην in
Mark by D W.
But as the readings of the other MSS. are of the nature of assimilations,
the text of B א is
to be preferred.
On the assumption, however, that the B text is correct
the insertion of τὴν by
both Matthew and Luke requires no special explanation.
The natural—though possibly not the correct—interpretation of τάλιν in
Mark is that He returned to a place previously mentioned, in which case the
article is grammatically indispensable.
The difference between ξηράν and ἐξηραμμένην corresponds
to the difference in English between the words "dry" and "dried";
and the question, which would be the more natural word to use in this particular
context is one that depends on those subtleties of linguistic usage, which
only contemporaries can appreciate.
| Mark iv.10. | Matthew i.10. | Luke viii.9 |
|---|---|---|
οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς δώδεκα |
οἱ μαθηταὶ |
οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ |
Mark's phrase is quite strikingly cumbrous, and "disciples" is the obvious simplification.
| Mark iv.36. | Matthew viii.23. | Luke viii.22. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὀχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ. |
καὶ ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. |
καὶ αὐτὸς ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. |
The prima facie implication of the language of Mark would be that the disciples
took charge of the situation, so to speak, and almost hustled our Lord into
the boat.
I do not suppose Mark intended to convey that impression;
but Matthew and Luke obviously go out of their way to emphasise the contrary.
Intentional correction to avoid possible misapprehension is plain,
but they correct in such different ways that they are clearly acting independently.
The example is important as illustrating the futility of counting verbal
coincidences without scrutinising the actual words, οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ is
the inevitable subject, and ἐμβαίνω is as obvious as "go
on board" would be in English.
| Mark i.19. | Matthew xxiv.19. | Luke xxi.23. |
|---|---|---|
ἐσονται γὰρ αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι θλῖψις |
ἐσται γὰρ τότε θλῖψις |
ἐσται γὰρ ἀνάγκη |
This is another of Professor Burton's 15 instances.
But Mark's phrase is stylistically intolerable in Greek.
Note, however, that though they agree in changing the verb to the singular,
Matthew and Luke differ in the substantive, which they make its subject,
i.e. in the actual alteration made, they differ more conspicuously than they
agree.
| Mark | Matthew | Luke |
|---|---|---|
viii.29. ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει αὐτῷ, σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός. |
xvi.16. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ σίμων πέτρος εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. |
ix.20. Πέτρος δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. |
xv.30-32. σῶσον σεαυτὸν καταβὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ... |
xxvii.40. σῶσον σεαυτόν, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, [καὶ] κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ. |
xi.35-37. σωσάτω ἑαυτόν, εἰ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐκλεκτός... |
Note that in two different contexts Matthew and Luke each alter Mark's
simple title "the Christ."
In both cases Matthew alters to "the Son of God," Luke to "the
Christ of God," i.e. each prefers a different title.
This example is most instructive;
for, if either of these parallels had stood alone, we might have supposed
the addition of τοῦ θεοῦ to
be the result of a coincident agreement of Matthew and Luke in an alteration
of Mark.
Whereas, having both sets of parallels, we see that, while Matthew and Luke
agree in altering Mark, each alters in a way characteristic of himself. That
is to say, the passages are, so far as they go, evidence of independent alteration.
| Mark xiv.47. | Matthew xxvi.51. | Luke x.49-50. |
|---|---|---|
εἷς δέ [τισ] τῶν παρεστηκότων σπασάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν ἐπαισεν. |
καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς ... μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ καὶ πατάξας. |
εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρῃ; καὶ ἐπάταξεν εἷς τις ἐξ αὐτῶν... |
There is a tendency in Greek authors to use παίω of striking with the hand or stick, πατάσσω of striking with a cutting instrument. The usage is not at all rigid, but is sufficiently pronounced to make it likely that both Matthew and Luke would independently make these substitutions.
| Mark xv.43. | Matthew xxvii.57. | Luke xi.50. |
|---|---|---|
ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ [ὁ] ἀπὸ Ἀ., ριμαθαίας εὐσχήμων βουλευτής |
ἦλθεν ἀνθρωπος πλούσιος ἀπὸ Ἀ., τοὐνομα Ἰωσήφ ... |
ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ἰωσὴφ, βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων |
From a literary point of view Mark's construction could only be justified if Joseph had been previously mentioned. A new character requires a phrase like "by name" or "named" to introduce him. N.B. also Matthew and Luke use different phrases for the purpose.
If all the agreements so far discussed occurred in the course of two or three chapters, the suggestion that they are "deceptive," i.e. that they are explicable as the result of independent editing, would be precarious. But they are spread over the whole of a lengthy document. Moreover, we must remember that every verse of Mark incorporated by Matthew and Luke has been so drastically rewritten that upwards of 45% of the words he uses have been changed by each of them. That is to say, the alterations are many times as numerous as any modern editor would make in a translated article, which he wished to turn into idiomatic English. Thus, although the number of coincident alterations may seem large, the proportion of them to the total number of alterations is extraordinarily small. On a rough estimate the number of words in Mark is about 12,000—I do not profess to have counted—the words altered by each will be over 5000, while the coincidences so far discussed would not amount to 100. Hence the coincident alterations would be less than 2% of the whole number of alterations. And considering the natural and obvious character of every one of these, this does not seem a large proportion.
If, however, anyone thinks the proportion too large to be accidental, it
is open to him to accept Dr. Sanday's hypothesis that the text of Mark used
by Matthew and Luke had undergone a slight stylistic revision. But, I would
submit, it is not open to him to account for the phenomena reviewed above
by the hypothesis of an "Ur-Marcus," that is, a more primitive
edition of Mark. For in every case, the coincident language used by Matthew
and Luke has been shown to be more polished, and in every way less primitive
than the existing text of Mark. If, therefore, the coincident agreements
of Matthew and Luke can only be explained on the theory that they used a
different edition of Mark to the one we have, then it is the earlier of the
two editions, the Ur-Marcus in fact, that has survived.
top
In the "Complete Table" of Agreements, very conveniently printed in parallel columns in the Appendix of E. A. Abbott's Corrections of Mark [The Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke (A. & C. Black), 1901.], the eye lights at once on a number of passages that cannot reasonably be explained on the hypothesis of coincident alteration by independent editors. But, of these, most of the more striking disappear if we reflect that, when Abbott wrote, the overlapping of Q and Mark had not yet been clearly grasped by students of the Synoptic Problem.
It is now realised that Q, as well as Mark, contained versions of John's Preaching, the Baptism, Temptation, Beelzebub Controversy, Mission Charge, parable of Mustard Seed, and that Matthew regularly, Luke occasionally, conflates Mark and Q. Hence agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in these contexts can be explained by the influence of Q. This covers phrases like περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάωου (Mt.iii.5 = Lk.iii.3), ἀωεῴχθησαν (-ηναι) (Mt.iii.16 = Lk.iii.21), ἀνήχθη (ἤγετο) (Mt.iv.1 = Lk.iv.1), which occur in introductions to Q sayings, since the Q sayings must have had some word or two of introduction.
Some scholars, however, have laid far too much stress on the bearing of
the overlapping of Mark and Q on the problem
of the minor agreements. We have no right to call in the hypothesis of the
influence of Q for this ulterior purpose
except in places where the existence of obviously different versions, or
of doublets very distinctly defined, provides us with objective evidence
of the presence of Q. Apart from the list
of passages just enumerated, there are only three in Abbott's list where
it seems to me that an agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark ought to
be explained by conflation from Q. In Mk.iv.21 = Mt.v.15 = Lk.viii.16 = Lk.xi.33; Mk.iv.22
= Mt.x.26 = Lk.viii.17 = Lk..2. In both of these the doublet in Luke is evidence
that the saying stood in Q. Again, in Mt.xvi.4 the addition of the word πονηρά,
and the mention of the Sign of Jonah—which are absent from the parallel in
Mk.viii.12—are due to the influence of the long Q passage Mt..39 ff. = Lk.xi.29 ff. Abbott here prints
Lk.xi.29 side by side with Mk.viii.12, but it comes from an entirely different
context. I mention this fact in order to emphasise the point that looking
at selected lists of parallels may be misleading unless one also turns up
the context in a good Synopsis of the Gospels.
top
I proceed to explore the hypothesis that a large number of the Agreements are due, not to the original authors, but to later scribes, being, in fact, examples of the phenomena of accidental omission, or of assimilation between the texts of parallel passages, which we have seen to be the main source of textual corruption.
Our examination, however, of passages in detail will be far more illuminating if we give due weight to three preliminary considerations.
(1) The Gospel of Mark could not compete in popularity with the fuller and richer Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and although I cannot agree with Burkitt's theory (cf. p. 339) that it went completely out of use for some time in the second century, it is probable that it was very much less frequently copied than the other Gospels. At a later date, when the practice of having each Gospel on a separate roll was discontinued, and the Codex containing all Four Gospels came into fashion, Mark, though much less read, was necessarily copied as often as the others.
Now, most ancient MSS. teem with accidental omissions of single words, of lines, and occasionally of paragraphs. There are MSS. of Homer where as many as 60 lines at a time are omitted. Where many copies of a work were in circulation, omissions would be soon repaired; but where there were only a few copies, omissions that did not attract attention, either from spoiling the sense or leaving out some familiar saying or incident, would easily escape notice. It is, therefore, antecedently probable that some lines or words which stood in the copies of Mark known to Matthew and Luke have dropped out of the text of all our oldest MSS. It may, then, not infrequently be the case that a verbal agreement of Matthew and Luke preserves a word or a line which once stood in Mark. I do not think this has happened very often, but it would be rather surprising if it had never happened at all.
(2) ASSIMILATION of parallel passages in the Gospels is the commonest form of textual corruption. Accordingly, a reading, which makes the wording of parallels differ, is in general to be preferred to one that makes them agree, even if the MS. evidence is comparatively slight. But this principle is sometimes pushed too far. In any average Synoptic parallel, perhaps 35% of the words used by Matthew and Luke are identical, being taken over from Mark. It follows that an accidental corruption of the text of Mark which affected an alteration in any of the words which both of them had happened to take over would leave an agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark. But the number of variants in the text of Mark in existing MSS. is very large, so that the chance that some of the readings found in the printed texts are the result of textual corruption is quite high.
(3) The CLASSIFICATION of the MSS. along the line of local texts attempted in Chaps. III and IV is
of such fundamental importance for our present investigation that, at the
risk of repetition, I venture to recall certain considerations there laid
down.
(a) If the Byzantine text goes back in essentials to the revision of Lucian
about AD 300, the evidence of all MSS. which present this text (and of all
mixed MSS., in so far as they present it) maybe treated as a single witness,
and that not one of the most important. Hence, in citing MS. evidence for
a particular reading it will considerably clarify the issue to use for all
these authorities the single symbol Byz.
(b) Again, the whole importance of the identification of local texts lies
in the fact that these represent relatively independent lines of transmission
of the text. Hence, instead of quoting MSS. in alphabetical order, as in
the ordinary Apparatus Criticus, I shall cite them, so far as possible, BY
THEIR GROUPING,
(c) If the MS. evidence for a reading belongs to the oldest recoverable form
of a local text, nothing is gained by citing subordinate authorities. Thus
where B א agree in a particular
reading, the evidence for it is not much increased by the fact that C
L 33 may be cited in support.
The important question to ask is,
Is the reading supported by B א, by D,
by a b, by k e,
or by fam. Θ or
by Syr. S., since these represent independent traditions?
Hence the common practice of citing all the MS. evidence is actually misleading.
I propose, therefore, only to quote the evidence of subordinate MSS. where
the evidence of the leading authorities is DIVIDED or OBSCURE,
(d) What carries most weight—apart from considerations of the intrinsic probability
of a given reading—is not the number of MSS. which support it, but the number
of local texts which the MSS. supporting it represent, or the age to which
by patristic quotations it can be pushed back. A reading, for instance, supported
by k, Syr. S. and 69,
or one supported by only one of these MSS. and a quotation of MARCION or JUSTIN,
deserves most serious consideration, even if every other MS. is against it.
top
The passages that follow include all the minor agreements not already discussed in this chapter that seem to me at all significant. They include those mentioned by Hawkins and by Burton; also all those in Abbott's exhaustive list that are in the slightest degree remarkable, along with certain others I have myself noticed.
| Mark i.40-42. | Matthew viii.2-3. | Luke v.12-13. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ ἐρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς … λέγων αὐτῷ ὁτι Ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι, καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἡψατο καὶ [αὐτοῦ] λέγει … καὶ εὐθὺς |
καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρὸς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων, Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἡψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων, θέλω … καὶ εὐθέως |
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ πλήρης λέπρας … ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ λέγων, Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἡψατο αὐτοῦ εἰπών ... καὶ εὐθέως |
(a) ἰδού is never
used by Mark in narration,
but is found 33 times in Matthew and 16 in Luke;
it is not, therefore, surprising that they concur occasionally in a stylistic
alteration of Mark which they are always making independently.
(b) Κύριε.
But the word occurs in Mark also in B C L 579 Sah., W c
e ff 2, Θ 700. It is omitted
by א D b,
Syr. S. Boh. Byz. Hort for once deserts B,
thinking B here assimilates (κύριε only
once in Mk.). But the combination of the three distinct traditions, Egyptian B C L Sah., "African" W c e,
and Caesarean Θ 700,
is a very strong one. Either, then, B is right and
there is no agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark; or we have, not only
a clear case of B L convicted of assimilation, but evidence of such an orgy
of assimilation in these small details that no text can be relied on, and
it is just as likely that the presence of κύριε in
either Matthew or Luke may be due to the same cause.
(c) The order of Matthew and Luke is ἥψατο αὐτοῦ against Mark's αὐτοῦ ἥψατο; but in Θ 565 Mark also has ἥψατο αὐτοῦ. But D e a ff 2 have αὐτοῦ ἥψατο αὐτοῦ in Mark, and in Matthew א 124 (D hiat.) Syr. Sah. Boh, attest the double αὐτοῦ, a reading hard to explain unless this was the original reading in Mark and was adopted by Matthew from him. If we accept the reading of D as original all is explained. Mark's Aramaic idiom is full of pronouns unidiomatic in Greek; the MS. tradition represented by Θ 565 drops the first αὐτοῦ; that represented by B, which is here followed by Byz., drops the second instead. Luke preferred the former course, which is really the more obvious, since it is the first αὐτοῦ that is redundant with χεῖρα, and, only if the second is dropped, can it be construed as object of ἥψατο.
(d) ἥψατο λέγων (or εἰπών) for ἥψατο καὶ λέγων.
Both Matthew and Luke regularly alter Mark’s historic present, unidiomatic in
this use, and in this instance the only natural thing was to put a participle;
but though an identical construction was practically forced on them, they differ
in the choice of the verb meaning "to say."
(e) εὐθέως against εὐθύς.
The fact is that εὐθέως is
the form preferred in all the Gospels in the majority of MSS. and is found
here in Mark also in all MSS. except in א B L 33 and Θ 164. But throughout
Mark, B (usually supported by א L and
sometimes by C) prefers εὐθύς;
the same MSS. often read εὐθύς in
other Gospels against εὐθέως in
the other MSS. It looks as if Mark preferred the form εὐθύς,
while the other evangelists (and scribes as a rule, except in Alexandria)
preferred εὐθέως.
But if by both authors and scribes εὐθέως was the
form preferred, an agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark is inevitable
wherever all three use the word.
| Mark ii.21-22. | Matthew ix.16-17. | Luke v.36-37. |
|---|---|---|
ἐπίβλημα … ἐπιράπτει … εἰ δὲ μή |
ἐπιβάλλει ἐπίβλημα … εἰ δὲ μήγε |
ἐπίβλημα ἐπιβάλλει … εἰ δὲ μήγε |
But
(a) B 301 read μύ;
in Matthew.
Was Hort right in deserting B?
(b) The noun ἐπίβλημα almost shouts
out to an editor to alter the verb to ἐπιράπτει.
| Mark ii.22. | Matthew ix.7. | Luke v.37-38. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί [ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς.] |
ὁ οἶνος [ἐκχεῖται] καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται: ἀλλὰ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς. |
καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται‧ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. |
In Matthew D a k omit ἐκχεῖται (and otherwise alter), "Western non-interpolation."
Curiously enough, however, while the acceptance of this as an interpolation gets rid of this, the first of the twenty agreements picked out by Hawkins as being specially conspicuous, acceptance of the Western reading produces an agreement later in the same verse, for D Old Lat. omit ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς. Synopses based on Hort's text ignore this omission; Huck accepts it. But both ignore the former instance. The line divisions in D (which Rendel Harris [Texts and Studies, II. i. p. 241 ff. (Cambridge, 1891).] has shown to be much older than the actual MS.) are such that, if the omitted line had stood in D, the words οἶνος ἀσκός, separated by only a few letters, would have occurred in each of three successive lines. This is a formation which invites accidental omission: the scribe copies the second line, and then glancing back to the model mistakes the third line for the one he has written and goes on with the line that follows. I hold, therefore, that א B Byz. are right in retaining the bracketed words in Mark, but that ἐκχεῖται in Matthew is due to assimilation from Luke.
| Mark ii.23. | Matthew .1. | Luke vi.1. |
|---|---|---|
ἠρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες |
ἠρξαντο τίλλειν … καὶ ἐσθίειν |
ἐτιλλον οἱ … καὶ ἠσθιον |
Scribes could make no satisfactory sense of ὁδὸν ποιεῖν, as the following variants show.
ὁδὸν ποιεῖν |
א C L Byz. |
ὁδοποιεῖν |
B G H. |
ὁδοιποῦντες |
13 etc. a q f Arm. Goth. |
Omit |
D W c e, b ff 2, Syr. S. |
If the phrase were an easy one, we should accept the combination D
Afr. and Eur. Lat. Syr. S. as final for
an omission. But the meaning of ποιεῖν—in
place of τροιεῖσθαι,
—in literary Greek is "make a road through the corn" (a
proceeding which, even if morally justifiable, is a curious way of satisfying
hunger); hence the omission of the difficult words is probably intentional.
[But F. Field quotes
a parallel from LXX (Judg.xvii.8) for the use of
τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ = "as
he journeyed,"
Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, p. 25 (Cambridge, 1899).]
Now Matthew and Luke must have felt the same difficulty as later scribes, and would, therefore, be compelled to rewrite the sentence. But anyone who began to rewrite a sentence about rubbing ears of corn for a meal would find the verb "to eat" come into his mind.
| Mark ii.24. | Matthew .2. | Luke vi.2. |
|---|---|---|
ἐξεστιν |
ἐξεστιν ποιεῖν |
ἐξεστιν [ποιεῖν] |
In Luke ποιεῖν occurs in the Synopses of Huck and Rushbrooke, but it is omitted by Westcott and Hort, with B R, D Old Lat., 69, 700, Arm. (hiat. Syr. S.).
| Mark ii.26. | Matthew .4. | Luke vi.4. |
|---|---|---|
εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς |
εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν [μόνοις] |
Εἰ μὴ μόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς |
It is worth noting that in Mark, μόνοις ἱερεῦσι is read by 33 (579) Sah. Boh., or ἱερεῦσι μόνοις by D, most Old Lat., 13 &c., Φ Arm. The variation in position suggests interpolation; but the reading is instructive as illustrating the possibility of assimilating along three independent lines of MS. tradition— Egyptian, Western, and Eastern.
μόνοις in Matthew is omitted by 1 &c, and a, while L Δ and k read μόνον. Variants of this sort are most easily accounted for if the word was absent from an ancestor of the MS. in which they occur, and have been supplied later by conjecture from recollection of the parallel gospel; so that L Δ k really support the omission.
| Mark iv.11. | Matthew i.11. | Luke viii.10. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ ἐλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ. |
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁτι Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. |
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ |
The phrase "the mystery is given to you" is obscure; the verb γνῶναι, (to understand) is the most natural one for two independent interpreters to supply. But note the singular μυστήριον is read in Matthew by k c, a ff 2, Syr. S. and C., Clem. Iren.
| Mark v.27. | Matthew ix.20. | Luke viii.44. |
|---|---|---|
ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὀχλῳ … ἡψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ. |
προσελθοῦσα … ἡψατο τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ |
προσελθοῦσα … ἡψατο [τοῦ κρασπέδου] τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ |
τοῦ κρασπέδου in Luke, om. D a ff 2 rl, a "Western non-interpolation."
| Mark vi.32-34. | Matthew xiv.13-14. | Luke ix.10.11. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ ἀπῆλθον ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ εἰς ἐρημον τόπον κατ' ἰδίαν. καὶ εἶδον αὐτοὺς ὑπάγοντας καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν πολλοί, καὶ πεζῇ ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων συνέδραμον ἐκεῖ καὶ προῆλθον αὐτούς... εἶδεν πολὺν ὀχλον, καὶ ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ὁτι ἦσαν ὡς πρόβατα μὴ ἐχοντα ποιμένα, καὶ ἠρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς πολλά. |
ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνεχώρησεν ἐκεῖθεν ἐν πλοίῳ εἰς ἐρημον τόπον κατ' ἰδίαν: καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ ὀχλοι ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ πεζῇ ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων... καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν τοὺς ἀρρώστους αὐτῶν. |
καὶ παραλαβὼν αὐτοὺς ὑπεχώρησεν κατ' ἰδίαν εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην βηθσαϊδά. οἱ δὲ ὀχλοι γνόντες ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ... καὶ τοὺς χρείαν ἐχοντας θεραπείας ἰᾶ. |
The Feeding of the Five Thousand is a section in which there are more minor agreements than in any other of the same length. They include, besides the parallels printed above, those to Mk.vi.43 and the words βρώματα (Mt.xiv.15, Lk.ix.13) and ὡσεί (Mt.xiv.21, Lk.ix.14) discussed below. Hence it is of particular importance to notice that the majority of them are distinctly of the nature of stylistic improvements on Mark, and therefore point away from an Ur-Marcus hypothesis.
The T.R. with 13 &c., and
some late MSS., adds εἶδον in
Mk.vi.33.
This, however, is probably due to assimilation; but since the subject of εἶδον (Mk.vi.33)
is different from that of the previous verb ἀπῆλθον,
grammar and sense in Greek, as in English, demand that the subject of εἶδον be
expressed. As the unexpressed subject is the people, described in the next sentence
of Mark as πολὺν ὄχλον,
Matthew and Luke naturally supply οἱ ὄχλον. Again,
the word ἀπῆλθον in
Greek, like "follow" in English, is the only natural one to employ,
if Matthew and Luke both wished to cut short Mark's more elaborate, but obviously
more primitive, "ran together there and arrived before them." It may
be added that the phrase ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὀχλος πολύς occurs
in Mk.v.24, where curiously enough it is not reproduced exactly by either Matthew
or Luke; the trick of memory which leads Matthew or Luke to introduce a collocation
of words from one context in Mark into quite another in their own Gospels is
very frequent. Hawkins [Hor. Syn. 2 p.
168 ff.] collects the instances under the heading "Transference of Formulae."
A more striking coincidence between Matthew and Luke is their addition of the statement that our Lord healed the sick. But the words in which they express this are as different as they well could be. Probably, therefore, this statement is an interpretative inference, made by both independently, of Mark's phrase ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ' αὐτοὺς —it being taken for granted that the pity expressed itself in action of this kind. There are other passages where one or other of the later evangelists adds to Mark a generalised statement of our Lord's healing, e.g. Mt.xv.30, Lk.vii.21. The actual words ἀρρώστους ἐθεράπευον occur Mk.vi.13, and it is quite in Matthew's habit to transfer such a formula. An alternative possibility is that καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν ἀρρώστους πολλούς, or something like it, originally stood in the text of Mark after διδάσκειν αὐτούς, if καὶ ... ἀρρώστους was omitted through homoioteleuton with αὐτούς, the surviving πολλούς would inevitably be altered to πολλά to make sense.
| Mark vi.43. | Matthew xiv.20. | Luke ix.17. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ ἦραν κλάσματα δώδεκα κοφίνων πληρώματα. |
καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων δώδεκα κοφίνους πλήρεις. |
καὶ ἠρθη τὸ περισσεῦσαν αὐτοῖς κλασμάτων κόφινοι δώδεκα. |
Mark's use of πληρώματα is
not really Greek;
and if one is to express the idea of surplus or residue in Greek neatly it can
only be done by some derivative of the word περισσόν,
and this word is used in Mark in the parallel sentence of the account of the
Feeding of the Four Thousand, which, of course, Matthew (and, perhaps, Luke)
had read. W D e 13 &c. have the noun form περίσσευμα in
Luke, while א D 13 &c. om. αὐτοῖς (W. αὐτῶν),
which is perhaps right.
There are two other agreements in this same section. βρώματα = "food," Mt.xiv.15, Lk.ix.13, is such an obvious word to use in this context that, seeing that it does not occur in verses in other respects verbally parallel, it is of no real significance, ὡσεί (Mt.xiv.21, Lk.ix.14); but this is omitted in Matthew by W, the uncial fragment 0106, Old Lat. Syr. C. (hiat. S.) Orig.Mt.; and ὡς is substituted in Δ 33, D, Θ 1.
| Mark ix.2-3. | Matthew xvii.2. | Luke ix.29. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ μετεμορφώθη ἐμπροσθεν αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο στίλβοντα λευκὰ λίαν … |
καὶ μετεμορφώθη ἐμπροσθεν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἡλιος, τὰ δὲ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο λευκὰ ὡς τὸ φῶς. |
καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι αὐτὸν τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἑτερον καὶ ὁ ἱματισμὸς αὐτοῦ λευκὸς ἐξαστράπτων. |
In a Greek Synopsis the underlined πρόσωπον strikes the eye of an English reader; but in real life, if we speak of a change in a person's appearance, the first thing we think of and mention is the face. If, then, there is anything that requires to be explained in this agreement—which I am inclined to doubt—it is not why both Matthew and Luke use the word πρόσωπον, but how Mark managed to avoid doing so. It reads a little strangely to say a person was transfigured, and then to go on to speak of the difference in his clothes without mentioning the face. Of course, the point in itself would be too small to be significant; but it is never safe to ignore the readings of fam. Θ, Syr. S. and k, when they agree in departing from the ordinary text. 1 &c. 346, Syr. S. k [k reads Candida aba. The aba is erased, and is probably an incorrect anticipation of the alba which occurs two lines later. It cannot have been meant as a translation of στίλβοντα.] concur in omitting στίλβοντα (Θ 565 transpose λευκὰ and στίλβοντα, a sign that one of these words was absent from their ancestor); but Syr. S., after "transfigured before them," adds the words "and he became gleaming," which may imply a Greek reading καὶ ἐγένετο στίλβων. Is it possible that the original text of Mark was καὶ ἐγένετο στίλβον τὸ πρόσωπον, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ λευκὰ λίαν? If πρόσωπον was accidentally omitted, στιλβοντο—written of course as one word and without accents— would be left "in the air." Sense had to be made somehow. The ancestor of fam. Θ k solved the difficulty by leaving out the words altogether; that of Syr. S. by changing them to στίλβων, which could then refer to Jesus; that of B by emending to στίλβοντα and transferring the words eyevero ἐγένετο στίλβον τα to another place in the sentence so as to construe with ἱμάτια.
| Mark ix.6-7. | Matthew xvii.5 | Luke ix.34. |
|---|---|---|
(No corresponding words.) |
ἐτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος |
ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος |
Matthew and Luke have no word in common except αὐτοῦ,
which of course proves nothing, and the insertion of some such words to mark
the transition is a literary improvement. Still it is perhaps a little odd—though
by no means impossible—that two independent writers should hit so nearly
upon the same phrase by way of addition.
An obvious hypothesis would be that ἐτι λέγοῦντος αὐτοῦ represents
a line in the original text of Mark, which has dropped out.
| Mark ix.19. | Matthew xvii.17. | Luke ix.41. |
|---|---|---|
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτοῖς λέγει, ὦ γενεὰ ἀπιστος, … φέρετε αὐτὸν πρός με. |
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, ὦ γενεὰ ἀπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη … φέρετέ μοι αὐτὸν ὧδε. |
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Ὦ γενεὰ ἀπιστος [καὶ διεστραμμένη], προσάγαγε ὧδε τὸν υἱόν σου. |
In Luke καὶ διεστραμμένη om. e Marcion (as quoted by both Tert. and Epiph.), i.e. by African [Tischendorf in his Apparatus overlooks the omission by e, but it is in his edition of that MS., Evangelium Palatinum ineditum (Leipzig, 1847).] and old Roman text. Syr. S. and C. (also in Mt.) transpose with ἄπιστος, perhaps for the sake of rhythm; but transposition always suggests an insertion.
In Luke ὧδε om. D r ; T.R. transposes.
The aorist εἶπεν is the usual substitution by Matthew and Luke for the unidiomatic historic present in Mark.
| Mark x.25. | Matthew xix.24. | Luke xviii.25. |
|---|---|---|
διὰ [τῆς] τρυμαλιᾶς [τῆς] ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον … εἰσελθεῖν. |
διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰσελθεῖν |
διὰ τρήματος βελόνης εἰσελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον … εἰσελθεῖν. |
(a) But D L and the majority of MSS. read τρυπήματος in Matthew, and Clem Orig.Cels. quotes the reading (without specifying from which Gospel). But C, Θ 124 565 700, etc., with Orig.Mt., read τρυμαλιᾶς; in Matthew as in Mark; and there is respectable MS. authority for both τρυμαλιᾶς and τρυπύματος in Luke. In other words assimilation has run riot. But the reading of D τρυμαλιᾶς Mark, τρυπύματος Matthew, τρήματος Luke, which is supported by א B in Matthew and Luke, and by the majority of other MSS. (but not א B) in Mark, makes all three Gospels different. As therefore it cannot be suspected of harmonisation, and also accounts for all the other variants, it is almost certainly correct — in which case the agreement disappears.
(b) In Matthew B Sah.codd., D Lat., Θ,
Syr. S. and C. Orig.Mt. read διελθεῖν.
Why Hort should have deserted B, when so well supported,
I cannot imagine.
| Mark x.30. | Matthew xix.29. | Luke xviii.30. |
|---|---|---|
ἑκατονταπλασίονα |
πολλαπλασίονα |
πολλαπλασίονα |
D Old Lat. read ἑπταπλασίονα in
Luke.
This reading, which makes all three Gospels differ, is surely right.
| Mark xi.1. | Matthew xxi.1. | Luke xix.28, 29. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ ὁτε ἐγγίζουσιν εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα εἰς βηθφαγὴ καὶ βηθανίαν |
καὶ ὁτε ἠγγισαν εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα καὶ ἦλθον εἰς βηθφαγὴ |
... ἀναβαίνων εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα ... ὡς ἠγγισεν εἰς βηθφαγὴ καὶ βηθανία[ν] |
In the text of W.H. and
in the T.R. (which is supported
by א B
L and the mass of MSS. there is no
agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark. But D,
Old Lat. 700, omit Bethphage in Mark
[The readings of Origen (iii. 743,
iv. 182) are especially interesting.
In his Commentary on John (tom,
x.) he quotes Mk.xi.1-12 in close accord with the B א text
including Bethphage; but in the Commentary on Matthew he expressly contrasts
the reading of Mark (Bethany only) with that of Matthew and Luke. Our previous
observation that he had by that time changed his text from B א to
that of fam. Θ, is confirmed by the
absence of Βεθφαγὴ καὶ from 700.]
—and Tischendorf accepts this “Western non-interpolation”.
Thus in Huck's Synopsis an agreement is shown.
But, if the original text of Mark omitted the name Bethphage, where did Luke
get it from?
It is not mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels.
Moreover, as Burkitt points out [J.T.S. Jan. 1916, p. 148.],
the way in which Mark mentions the three names is confusing.
Both Matthew and Luke simplify in different ways by rearranging the sentences.
The Western text does it by the easier method of omitting Bethphage.
This is the second case, which has already come under our notice of omission
by D, Old Lat. to meet a difficulty.
The lesson is a valuable one.
Western omissions are not always "non-interpolations."
| Mark xi.27. | Matthew xxi.23. | Luke xx.1. |
|---|---|---|
καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ ἐρχονται ... οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ... |
καὶ ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ [διδάσκοντι] οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ... |
καὶ ἐγένετο ... διδάσκοντος αὐτοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ... ἐπέστησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς |
In Matthew διδίασκοντι omitted by Old Latin (a b c e ff 1 g 2 h I), Old Syr. (S. and C.).
| Mark xi.29. | Matthew xxi.24. | Luke xx.3. |
|---|---|---|
ὁ δὲ ... εἶπεν ... ἐπερωτήσω ὑμᾶς ἑνα λόγον, καὶ ἀποκρίθητέ μοι. |
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ... εἶπεν ... ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ λόγον ἑνα, ὃν ἐὰν εἰπητέ μοι |
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπεν ... ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ λόγον, καὶ εἰπατέ μοι. |
ἀποκριθείς is
found in Mark also, in D, Old Lat., Syr. S., and Byz.
This may be the right reading; but, other things being equal, a text that makes
the Gospels differ is to be preferred. But no one who has glanced at the verb ἀποκρίνομαι,
in a concordance to the New Testament will attach any significance to a concurrent
use of the constantly recurring phrase ἀποκριθείς εἶπεν.
But it is obvious that, having chosen this conventional opening for the sentence,
Matthew and Luke were bound to substitute another verb of saying for the ἀποκρίθητε of
Mark a few words later.
καγὼ occurs in Mark in א, D, Old Lat., Old Syr., Byz.—a strong combination; but, as the word is not elsewhere used by Mark, it is probably rightly rejected. But the sense requires the emphasis; perhaps the ἐπερωτήσω was Mark's way of getting this; the others substitute the natural Greek expression, which is one they frequently use elsewhere.
| Mark .11, 12. | Matthew xxi.44. | Luke xx.18. |
|---|---|---|
(omits.) |
[καὶ ὁ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον …] W.H. bracket. |
πᾶς ὁ πεσὼν etc. |
The verse is omitted in Matthew by 33, D, Old Lat., Syr. S.; Orig.Mt. Euseb.
| Mark .12. | Matthew xxi.45. | Luke xx.19. |
|---|---|---|
(Simply 3rd pers. Pl. “they”.) |
οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι |
οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς |
Marcion omitted the words in Luke, and this may represent the earliest Roman text. But Mark had last named the opponents of Jesus in xi.27 = Mt.xxi.23 = Lk.xx.1; stylistically speaking, it was time to repeat the subject of the verb; and this was more necessary for Matthew than Luke since he had interpolated a series of parables since the last mention of the chief priests. The subject in Mark xi.27 is οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι , Luke repeats the first two; Matthew, whose Gospel often elsewhere reflects anti-Pharisaic polemic, substitutes Pharisees. So far, therefore, from agreeing against Mark, they differ as far as was possible (granted each wished to name a subject to the verb), since the high priests were so obviously the leading characters that they could not be omitted.
| Mark .22. | Matthew x.27. | Luke xx.32. |
|---|---|---|
ἐσχατον πάντων |
ὑστερον δὲ πάντων |
[ὑστερον] καὶ … |
Luke ὑστερον om. Syr. S. and C. Old Lat. a c I ; e om. whole verse from "hour."
| Mark .28. | Matthew x.35, 36. | Luke x.25, 26. |
|---|---|---|
εἷς τῶν γραμματέων ... ἐπηρώτ |