Mark 5:27 - A Small Clue to Consider in the Synoptic Mystery

In Mark 5:21-43 (chapter 21 of the Greek text) and Matthew 9:18-26 and Luke 8:40-56 the testimony of Saint Veronica is related - the woman who had suffered for twelve years from hemorrhages until the day she met Jesus.

In Matthew 9:20, and in Luke 8:44, after the word ηψατο, both read του κρασπέδου του ιματίου αυτου.  Mark 5:27, though, reads του ιματίου αυτου,  without του κρασπέδου . . . or did he?

There's instability in the text of Mark 5:27 - WH1881  Souter1910 and  NA25 had τα after ακουσασα but this was changed; NA27 does not have τα in the text.  Thee pertinent variant involving του κρασπέδου is not included in the textual apparatus of the UBS and NA compilations.  The text of family-1, 021 (M - Campianus), 33 and 579  include του κρασπέδου in Mark 5:27!   

It's a natural harmonization to Matthew (and Luke), and entirely benign - but the majority of manuscripts do not have it.  Apparently more than one scribe working independently, including the scribe responsible for the archetype of family-1, felt led (erroneously) to add του κρασπέδου to Mark's account.  

This means something regarding the literary relationship between the texts of the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke as we know them (the Synoptic Problem).  Advocates of the Two-Source Solution and the Four Source Hypothesis operate on the premise that Matthew and Luke borrowed material from Mark's account - Matthew enlarging Mark's account via the inclusion of his transcripts of Jesus' discourses, and Luke enlarging Mark's account via the inclusion of the testimonies of various eyewitnesses.  

Matthew closely followed Mark's report about Jairus' daughter and Veronica - but not in this little detail about specifying that she thought about touching the hem of his garment.  Why did Matthew and Luke both mention this detail and not Mark?

I propose that neither Matthew nor Luke had copies of the Gospel of Mark in front of them when they composed their Gospels.  Instead, they had two forms of Proto-Mark - Mark's collections of Peter's remembrances about Jesus as the written collection existed in the early 60s, not as the Gospel of Mark existed when officially released in Rome c. 67-68.  And in Proto-Mark, the words του κρασπέδου were present in the text, eliciting their inclusion by Matthew and Luke.  When preparing  the definitive text of his Gospel, Mark himself committed parablepsis:  his line of sight drifted from the του of του κρασπέδου to the του of the following phrase (του ιματίου αυτου).

An interesting lesson in how the Holy Spirit bears with human weakness even in the production of the Word of God.

For reference:  My solution to the Synoptic Problem:

 

  

The Miseducation of Jimmy Wallace re: Mark 16:9-20

Jimmy Wallace, writing for the Cold-Case Christianity apologetics ministry, is guilty of spreading several false statements.  Let's review:

"Mark 16:9-20, the last 11 verses of the Gospel" 

They are twelve verses, not just eleven.

"In a letter to a fellow Christian, ancient historian Eusebius (who lived from A.D. 265 – 339) suggested these verses were not authentic to Mark and could be disregarded" 

In real life, Eusebius encouraged Marinus to retain Mark 16:9-20, and to resolve the perceived discrepancy with Matthew 28 by understanding that there should be a pause after "Rising."  It is of course possible that Eusebius changed his mind later when creating his cross-reference system for the Gospels (the Eusebian Canons).   

"Jerome also believed verses 9 – 20 were not authentic: - 

False.  Jerome utilized part of Eusebius' material, but made it clear in Ad Hedibiam (Epistle 120) that Mark 16:9-20 ought to be retained.  He included Mark 16:9-20 in the Vulgate in 383 and later in life he mentioned that he had seen the interpolation now known as the Freer Logion "especially in Greek codices."

"Severus of Antioch agreed with the skepticism surrounding these verses."

Wrong.  If brother Wallace had read John Burgon carefully he would have avoided making this kind of mistake.

"In fact, scholars throughout history (and even to the present time) have discussed whether these verses are original to Mark."

In real life, Mark 16:9-20 is supported by over 1,650 Greek copies, ad is absent from three.

" It is more difficult to understand the reverse, wherein the verses were in the original gospel and a later Christian removed the passage."

Is it though?  A meticulous scribe in the early second century, regarding what we know as the Gospel of Mark as the record of Peter's recollections about Jesus, perceiving (rightly or wrongly) that verses 9-20 had their origin with Mark, without Petrine approval, could understandably excise the verses in his collection of the Gospels, on the grounds that Peter's recollections, not Mark's, should form the contours of the narrative.    

"The earliest and most reliable copies of Mark exclude the passage"

A needlessly vague way to refer to two fourth-century copies.

"Ireneus, an influential church leader who lived from A.D. 130 to 202, quoted Mark 16:9 in his work Against Heresies (written circa 180 A.D.)"

Irenaeus explicitly quoted Mark 16:19.

"As a result, it is clear the verses were added to Mark quickly after the Gospel’s original writing."

Rather, it is clear that in three copies of the Gospel of Mark used by men one generation removed from apostolic times, verses 9-20 were present.

 
There appear to be two competing versions of Mark in the early days of the faith, with Christians making copies of version to which they had access.

"Due to the early appearance of this passage, it cannot be quickly or easily dismissed."

How generous.  A passage utilized by over 40 patristic sources before the fall of the Roman Empire, and routinely read in Byzantine churches as the third Heothinon, included in every undamaged copy of the Vulgate and Peshitta and Ethiopic Gospels cannot be easily dismissed.  One could almost get the impression that God wants his people to treat the passage as inspired Scripture.

"The passages are noted with footnotes and warnings."

"Warnings" misrepresents the evidence.

An accurate and up-to-date presentation of the relevant evidence can be found in the fourth edition of my book Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20.