John 6:11 - An Instructive Variant-unit

           In John 6:11, as John presents his account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, an instructive textual variant appears:  where the KJV and NKJV say that Jesus, after giving thanks, gave the pieces of fish to the disciples, and the disciples gave to those who were seated, the EHV and ESV, NIV, CSB, etc., do not specifically mention the disciples in this verse about the distribution of the pieces of fish. 

            Textually, the difference between the Greek text of the KJV and NKJV, versus the Greek base-text of the other versions, is uncomplicated:  the Textus Receptus, supported by a large majority of manuscripts, has, after the word διέδωκεν (“gave”), the words τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ (“to the disciples, and the disciples”). 

            Theoretically, these words could be lost by accident:  they begin with exactly the same word that follows them (τοῖς), and a copyist who skipped from one τοῖς to the next τοῖς might not realize his mistake.  On the other hand, these words could be deliberately inserted in order to bring John’s account into closer harmony with the other Gospel-writers’ descriptions of the same event: 

            ● Matthew 14:19 says that after Jesus gave thanks for the bread, He broke it and gave to the disciples the bread (τοῖς μαθηταῖς τοὺς ἄρτους), and the disciples (οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ) to the crowd (τοῖς ὄχλοις).

            ● Mark 6:41 says that after Jesus broke the bread, He gave (ἐδίδου) to the disciples (τοῖς μαθηταῖς)

            ● Luke 9:16 says that Jesus gave (ἐδίδου) the broken bread and fish to the disciples (τοῖς μαθηταῖς)

            The flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian text, beginning with Papyrus 28, Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, À (Codex Sinaiticus), and B (Codex Vaticanus) weigh in for non-inclusion of τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ.  Their allies in this case include Codex A (fol. 46r), L, N, W, Π, and the Curetonian Syriac, the Peshitta, the Gothic version, and the Armenian version.   This is an interesting array of versional support, because the Peshitta and the Gothic version tend to favor the Byzantine Text in the Gospels.

            Wieland Willker’s Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels gives an overview of the relevant external evidence.  Greek support for τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ includes D (Codex Bezae), S, Δ, Θ, Ψ, and versional allies include the Sinaitic Syriac, Lycopolitan John (the Qau Codex), and some Old Latin manuscripts.

            Here is an additional sample of the large majority of manuscripts that support the Byzantine reading:  Codex G (011), Codex Y (034), 72, 115, 116, 157 (with οχλοις (“the crowd”) instead of τοῖς ἀνακειμένοις (“those who were seated”)), 178 , 484, 490, 505, 537, 715, 699, 714, 796, 892 (with αυτου (“His”) describing the disciples), 1186, 1187, 1200, 1209, 1318, 1478, 2612, 2099, and 2290.   

            In addition, two witnesses have notable features:

            ● In GA 1346 the main text does not include τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ but in the outer margin, partly trimmed away, the words have been written, and in the margin and in the text where the correction was intended to appear, the ⁜ symbol appears.

           ● In GA 775 the main text did not include τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ but a corrector has erased part of the shorter ending and replaced it with the longer reading.

            If representatives of the Alexandrian text stood alone, it would be very tempting to reckon that an early Alexandrian copyist accidentally lost τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ via a parableptic error when his line of sight drifted from τοῖς to τοῖς.  However, representatives of the early core of the Byzantine Text – representatives of Family Π – are allied with Codex A, Codex N (a purple uncial), and distinctly non-Alexandrian versional evidence in support of the non-inclusion of τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ:  114, 265, 389, 1079, 1188 , 1219, 2615, 2291(with συν before ἀνακειμένοις), and 2757 support the non-inclusion of τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ. 

            It may be plausible to posit one parableptic error, but not the same parableptic error in multiple transmission-lines – which is what is required to explain the lack of support for τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ in (1) the Peshitta, (2) in the Vulgate, (3) in Gothic, (4) in the P75-B-L-Sah cluster, and (5) in members of Family Π, if these words are original in John 6:11.

            What has happened – and it must have happened fairly early to be echoed in witnesses as diverse as D, the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Qau Codex – is a very common kind of textual variant in the Gospels:  a harmonization.  This introduction of words from Matthew 14:19 into John 6:11 was probably intended to guide readers to an accurate understanding of the scene, so that they would not misunderstand John’s words to mean that Jesus gave the bread Himself without the agency of the disciples.  It may be considered a benign harmonization – even a pastorally motivated one – but it would have been better to let John’s own words stand as they were.

            This variant-unit shows that a simple appeal to the majority of manuscripts is not a safe path to the original form of the text.  It also shows that the early production-date of a witness is no guarantee that its text is better than that of a much later manuscript (such as 114). 

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.

             

Luke 11:33 - Don't Put Your Light Under a Bushel

            When someone asks, “What’s a text-critically interesting verse in the Gospels?” the typical answer is not likely to be “Luke 11:33.”  The differences between the meanings of the rival variants in this verse are not very consequential:  basically, some manuscripts have the phrase, οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον, that is, “or under a bushel-basket,” and some do not; also, near the end of the verse, in some Greek manuscripts the Greek word rendered “light” in English is φῶς, while in other manuscripts, it is φέγγος. 

            Yet it is probably safe to say that Luke 11:33 is a strong contender for the title “Verse Most Likely to Be Changed from One Critical Edition to Another.”  Here is how some recent Greek compilations have treated Luke 11:33:

            ● Nestle-Aland NTG 27:  brackets οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον and adopts φῶς.

            ● Robinson-Pierpont 2005:  includes οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον and adopts φέγγος.

            ● SBLGNT 2011:  includes οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον and adopts φέγγος.

            ● Tyndale House GNT 2017:  does not include οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον and adopts φῶς.      

           

            The vast majority of Greek manuscripts, including the two flagship representatives of the Alexandrian Text, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (ℵ), and the best Greek representative of the Western Text, Codex D, support the inclusion of οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον.  Exploring the evidence more closely, we see that ℵ A B C D K M W X Δ Θ Π Ψ and the Curetonian Syriac, the Peshitta, the Bohairic, and all Latin witnesses, are allies of the Byzantine Text; they all support the inclusion of οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον.  (The Gothic version, alas, is not extant for this part of Luke.)

 

Luke 11:33: at the end of col. 1
and the start of col. 2.

          The main witnesses for non-inclusion are Papyrus 45, Papyrus 75, L (019), Γ (036), Ξ (040), 070 (Greek-Coptic), 700*, 1241, family 1, 69, 118, and 788, and the Sinaitic Syriac, the Sahidic version, and the Armenian and Georgian versions.  While this array of witnesses may appear negligible in terms of quantity when set alongside the mountains of witnesses which favor the other reading, the age and diversity of its members are interesting:  P45 and P75 are the earliest manuscripts of this part of Luke, and the Alexandrian (P75, L, Sahidic), Western (Sinaitic Syriac) and Caesarean (f¹, Armenian) forms of the text are represented.                 

            Let’s examine the text nearby in search of similar arrays of variants supporting shorter readings.   

● (1)  In Luke 11:11, P45, P75, and B, 1241, and the Armenian version, along with the Sinaitic Syriac, support the non-inclusion of ἄρτον μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; ἣ καὶ ἰχθύν, which has very abundant support, with some slight variations, in A C D (which, with 124, adds αἰτήσει after ἰχθύν) F G Y K M U W X Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ f¹ f¹³ 1 1582* 1424 (in ℵ, L, 28, 157, and 700, ἄρτον μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; ἣ ἰχθύν, lacking the καὶ) – “bread, will he give to him a stone? And if a fish.” 

            The minuscules 69 and 788 (along with 565) do not include the second part of the verse, that is, they have ἄρτον μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ but not the rest of the verse, as if they echo an ancestor-manuscript in which the copyist’s line of sight drifted from this occurrence of ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ to the recurrence of the same words at the end of the verse, skipping the words in between.

            Upon comparing the witnesses for the main shorter reading in 11:11 and 11:33, we see that several of them are the same:  P45, P75, 1241, Sinaitic Syriac, Sahidic, Armenian.  And a couple of witnesses for the other shorter reading in 11:33 (69 788) also support the shorter reading in 11:33.

            It should not be overlooked that 157 omits all of 11:12, and 579 omits everything before μὴ.  Also in 11:12, where the normal reading is ᾠόν (egg), P45 reads ἄρτον (bread).

● (2)  In Luke 11:14, P45 P75 ℵ B A* L 1 33 157 788 1241 1582* Sinaitic Syriac and the Armenian version are among the group of witnesses that support the non-inclusion of καὶ αὐτὸ ἧν (and it was).

● (3)  In Luke 11:44, P45 P75 ℵ B C L 33 f¹ 157 579 and the Sinaitic Syriac, Curetonian Syriac, and the Armenian, Georgian, and Sahidic versions do not include γραμματεις καὶ Φαρισαιοι, υποκριταί (Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites).  Most manuscripts (such as A K M Γ Δ Θ Π Ψ 69 157 565 579 700 788) include the words, but D omits υποκριταί.

● (4)  At the end of Luke 11:48, P75 ℵ B D L 579 do not include αυτων τα μνημεια (“their tombs”).  Family 1 and 157 read instead τους τάφους αυτων.  (P45 is not extant for this verse.)

● (5)  In Luke 11:53:

            P75 reads Κακειθεν εξελθόντες αυτου

            ℵ B C L 33 69 579 788 1241 read Κακειθεν εξελθόντος αυτου

            P45 reads Κακειθεν εξελθόντος (apparently without αυτου); Willker mentions that the manuscript is damaged but space-considerations rule out the inclusion of αυτου.

            A K M Π W Γ Δ Ψ f¹ 565 read Λέγοντος δε ταυτα προς αυτους, which is supported by most manuscripts. 
            D Θ 157 agree with A but continue with ενωπιον παντος του λαου; this reading has considerable Old Latin and Armenian support; especially interesting is that this reading is also supported by the Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac. 

            Meanwhile 69 and 788 simply read Και before ηρξαντο.

● (6) and (7)  In Luke 11:54:

            P45 P75 B L f¹ 579, with Coptic support, begin the verse with ενεδρεύοντες αυτον before θηρευσαι.

            ℵ begins the verse with ενεδρεύοντες before θηρευσαι.

            Most manuscripts, including C K Π M  f¹ 157 565 700, with support from the Vulgate and the Peshitta, read ενεδρεύοντες αυτον ζητουντες at the beginning of the verse, and read ινα κατηγορήσωσιν αυτου at the end of the verse.  A W* Δ f¹³ differ only slightly at the end of the verse, reading ινα κατηγορήσουσιν αυτου. 

            D’s text is quite different:  ζητουντες αφορην τινα λαβειν αυτου ινα ευρωσιν κατηγορησαι αυτου.  This is supported by the Sinaitic Syriac and Curetonian Syriac, and is imperfectly supported by the Old Latin.

            Θ reads ενεδρεύοντες before τι θηρευσαι at the beginning of the verse; it agrees with most manuscripts at the end of the verse.

            Without attempting to offer a full analysis of all seven of these textual contests here, I offer brief explanations vindicating the longer reading in six cases:

● (1)  In Luke 11:11, the shorter reading originated when a copyist skipped a line of text but nevertheless produced a coherent sentence; the reading of P45 in verse 12 (ἄρτον instead of ᾠόν) is a vestige of the scribe’s recollection of the original longer reading.  Harmonization to Matthew 7:9 was limited to the addition of αυτου after υιος mainly in Caesarean witnesses.

● (2)  In Luke 11:14, the shorter reading in P45 P75 ℵ B 1241 et al is a slight stylistic refinement; as Metzger noted, καὶ αὐτὸ ἧν  κωφόν “appears to be a Semitism in the Lukan style.  The chance seems low that a scribe would sense a need to shift from “He was casting out a dumb demon” to “He was casting out a demon and it was dumb,” and happen to fit Lukan style.  

● (3)  In Luke 11:44, the shorter rreading – that is, the removal of the explicit identification of the scribes and Pharisees – originated when a scribe wondered why the lawyers would feel that they were being criticized by a rebuke specifically aimed at others. 

● (4)  At the end of Luke 11:48, the Byzantine reading makes explicit what is implied without an object.  Family 1 and family 13 do likewise, but their wording is different.  The shorter reading here is original. 

● (5)  In Luke 11:53, the Alexandrian Text has non-Lukan wording; κακειθεν appears only here in Luke, and εξελθόντος appears elsewhere in Luke only in 11:14 (contested by εκβληθέντος in A C L f¹³ 69) where a demon’s departure is being described.  Willker suggests that the Byzantine reading was introduced because it avoids raising the question of where was the “there;” the exact location being unmentioned in the lection that begins at 11:47.  However, the Byzantine reading raises a question of its own, that is, who is the “them” – for at 11:46, Jesus begins criticizing not the scribes and Pharisees, but the specialists in the Law.  The Alexandrian way around this problem was to rewrite the introductory phrase, which happens to correspond to the beginning of Mark 9:30.

            The Western Text’s inclusion of ενωπιον παντος του λαου echoes Luke 8:47; this reading must be extremely early (as demonstrated by support from the Sinaitic Syriac and Old Latin Codex Vercellensis), and shows that some copyists had a tendency to expand later parts of the Gospel with verbiage taken from earlier parts.     

           

● (6)  In Luke 11:54a:  the shorter reading originated when an early copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters –οντες in ενεδρεύοντες to the same letters in ζητουντες.  In most copies descended from the exemplar that contained this mistake, it is partly corrected (via the addition of αυτον – but 28 and 1424 read instead αυτω) but not in ℵ and Θ.

● (7)  In Luke 11:54b, the shorter reading originated when an early copyist’s line of sight drifted from the αυτου after στόματος to the same word after κατηγορήσωσιν, accidentally skipping the words in between.

            The inclusion of ευρωσιν in D’s text here is interesting; D thus echoes (albeit inexactly) the end of Luke 6:7.  This again illustrates some scribe’s tendency to expand later parts of a book by introducing elements they had encountered in earlier parts.

 

Luke 11:33 in GA 1241.

           Having reviewed the above seven textual contests, and  having seen that in six out of the seven, the longer reading is reasonably defensible, we return now to Luke 11:33.  This is Luke’s record of a saying of Jesus very similar to the one in Matthew 5:15, where the μόδιον is mentioned; a closer parallel, however, is in Luke 8:16, where the reference is to hiding the lamp under a σκεύει (“vessel”), rather than a μόδιον (bushel-basket).  In 28 there is a clear attempt to conform 11:33 to Luke 8:16; minuscule 28 reads καλυπτει αυτον σκεύει η before εις κρύπτον.  In 579, the text is conformed to Matthew 5:15 toward the end, reading και λάμπει πασιν τοις εν τη οικια.  And in 118 f¹³ 69 788, at the end of the verse, the words are transposed so as to correspond to the end of Luke 8:16.   

            In short, except for minuscule 28, the harmonizations that appear in Luke 11:33 look like they have been based on Luke 8:16, not Matthew 5:15.  If a copyist were to introduce “under the bushel-basket” into a form of Luke 11:33 that did not have the phrase, the natural place to put it would be before the reference to putting the lamp in a secret place, thus corresponding to the gist of Mark 4:21 and the gist of Luke 8:16; I mean that in both Mark 4:21 and Luke 8:16, the reference to the lamp being covered precedes whatever else is said.

            If οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον is not a partial harmonization to Matthew 5:15, it is original – in which case, how does one account for its absence in P45 P75 L 788 et al, while also accounting for its presence in ℵ B A C D K Π W?  There are two factors which do this:  (1)  Scribes’ recollection of Luke 8:16, in which τίθησιν is followed immediately by αλλ’ επι λυχνίας.  (2)  A simple homoioteleuton error.  Single-letter homoioteleuton is rare but it does sometimes happen:  all that is needed for οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον to disappear is for a scribe’s line of sight to drift from the ν at the end of τιθησιν to the ν at the end of μόδιον.  Adding to the ease of such an occurrence is that the scribe would have written τίθησιν αλλ’ επι λυχνίας  (or, τίθησιν αλλ’ επι λυχνίαν) a few chapters earlier.  

            There is still the other variant-unit in Luke 11:33 to consider:  φως or φέγγος?  Φως looks like a harmonization to Luke 8:16, especially in 118 f¹³ 69 788.  Φέγγος is the rarer word, and considering the presence of φως in the parallel-passages, there would be little impetus to replace φως with φέγγος; meanwhile familiarity with Luke 8:16 would tend to elicit a harmonization from φέγγος to φως.  The reading of P45, φέγγος, should be adopted.  Here we have an ancient reading which is not Alexandrian (for P75 ℵ B 33 read φως) nor Western (for D also reads φως) nor Caesarean (for f¹ reads φως and f¹³ also reads φως, transposed).  The Byzantine Text, and the Byzantine Text alone (but with support from the back-up team of L, Γ, 124, 565 and 700), besides the usual Byzantine witnesses Α Κ Μ W Δ Λ Π etc,, displays the original reading here, defying the theory that it is merely an amalgamation of the other text-forms, and supporting the theory that the Byzantine Text contains a stratum of ancient and independent readings. 

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.

Sinaiticus and Byz: Same Message in Mark?

            As a supplement to the previous post, in which I listed 60 translation-impacting differences between the text of Matthew in Sinaiticus and the text of Matthew in the Byzantine Text, here is a list of 60 translation-impacting differences between Sinaiticus and the Byzantine Text in the text of Mark.  

  

● 1.  In Mark 1:1, does Mark, as narrator, refer to Jesus as the Son of God?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 2.  In Mark 1:2, did Mark state that it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face”?  (The quotation is from Malachi 3:1.)

            Byzantine Text:  no

            Sinaiticus:  yes
            (A four-part essay about this textual contest is available:  Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four.)

● 3.  In Mark 1:28, at the beginning of His ministry as described in Mark chapter 1, did Jesus preach in the synagogues of Galilee, or on the synagogues of Judea?

            Byzantine Text:  Galilee

            Sinaiticus:  Judea

            Inasmuch as Galilee and Judea are not the same place, these two variants do not say the same thing, and one must be incorrect.  This is a mistake by the copyist of À. 

● 4.  In Mark 1:32, were demon-possessed individuals brought to Jesus for healing?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  this is not stated

            The copyist of À skipped the second half of Mark 1:32, all of Mark 1:33, and the first part of verse 34, when his line of sight drifted from “and” (και) in the middle of verse 32 to the same word in the middle of verse 34.   

● 5.  In Mark 1:33, was all the city gathered at the door?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  this is not stated 

            The same parableptic error that affected the text of À in verse 32 has affected it here, resulting in the loss of verse 33.

● 6.  In Mark 1:34, does Mark state that Jesus healed many who were sick with various diseases?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            Sinaiticus lacks this statement due to the same scribal error that caused the loss of verse 33.

  

● 7.  In Mark 2:12, what did the people say after Jesus healed the paralytic and forgave his sins?

            Byzantine Text:  we never saw anything like this

            Sinaiticus:  Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel

            The text of À here is corrupted by a harmonization; the phrase was taken from Matthew 9:33.

● 8.  In Mark 3:8, were Idumeans mentioned among the people who came to Jesus?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            The copyist of À accidentally skipped the phrase that mentions people from Idumaea; his line of sight drifted from και (“and”) to και.

● 9.  In Mark 3:15, does Mark say that when Jesus appointed the twelve, they were given power to heal sicknesses?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no 

● 10.  Did Jesus conclude Mark 4:24 with the words, “it shall be added to you,” or, “it shall be added to you who hear”?

            Byzantine Text:  “it shall be added to you who hear.”

            Sinaiticus:  “it shall be added to you.”

● 11.  Does Mark 4:28 include the phrase “then an ear”?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            The copyist of À accidentally skipped the phrase when his line of sight skipped from ειτα (“then”) to ειτα.  

● 12.  In Mark 6:4, did Jesus say, “and among his relatives”?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            The copyist of À accidentally skipped the phrase when his line of sight skipped from the first occurrence of “his” (αυτου, or in À, εαυτου)  to the next occurrence of the word in the Alexandrian transmission-stream.

● 13.  In Mark 6:7-8, as Jesus sent forth the twelve, did He give them authority over unclean spirits?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            The copyist of À accidental skipped this statement when his line of sight drifted from αυτοις (“them”) to the next occurrence of the same word, in verse 8.

● 14.  In Mark 6:11, did Jesus say that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than it will be for a city that rejects the apostles?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

Salome Dancing for Herod
(from fol. 21v of the Holkham Picture Bible)

● 15.  Does Mark 6:22 describe the young woman who danced in Herod’s presence – the young woman who is also identified in Matthew 14:6 as the daughter of Herodias – as “the daughter of Herod”?

            Byzantine Text:  no

            Sinaiticus:  yes

            Sinaiticus and some other Alexandrian witnesses also say that her name was Herodias:  της θυγατρὸς αυτου Ἡρωδιάδος, although Josephus identifies her as Salome, the daughter of Herodias from her marriage to Herod’s brother.  The idea that Mark would describe this young woman as Herod’s daughter, immediately after reporting that John the Baptist had declared Herod’s marriage to Herodias to be unlawful, seems implausible, as does the idea that Herod would happen to have a daughter with the same name as the woman who had been married to his brother.  Nevertheless, the editors of the Nestle-Aland compilation, and the editors of the NET, seem determined to prefer the more difficult reading, even when it appears to contradict Matthew 14:6, and it poses a historical improbability, and is something intrinsically unlikely for the author to have written.

● 16.  Did Mark report in 6:27-28 that a soldier beheaded John the Baptist in the prison?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            The copyist of À accidentally skipped the second half of verse 27 and the first segment of verse 28 when his line of sight drifted from “his head” (την κεφαλην αυτου) in verse 27 to the same words in verse 28.  (Amazingly, this omission in the text of À has not been corrected.)

● 17.  In Mark 6:36, as the disciples said that the crowds should be dismissed, did the disciples also say specifically that the people did not have anything to eat?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no   

● 18.  Did Mark note in 7:3 that the Pharisees wash with the fist (so as to wash the entire hand, according to a certain custom), or that the Pharisees wash often?

            Byzantine Text:  with the fist

            Sinaiticus:  often

            An interesting side-note:  the KJV agrees with the rare reading found in À; however the 1611 KJV had a margin-note offering an alternative rendering (“diligently”) and mentioning that the original text means “with the fist,” which was understood by the commentator Theophylact to mean “up to the elbow.” 

● 19.  Does Mark 7:4 describe immersions, or acts in which water was poured over various objects?

            Byzantine Text:  immersions (βαπτίσωνται)

            Sinaiticus:  acts in which water was poured (ῥαντίσωνται)

● 20.  Did Jesus say “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” in Mark 7:16?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            This verse is not only absent from À but from a few other Alexandrian manuscripts too.

● 21.  Does Mark 8:7 say that Jesus commanded that the fish was to be set before the people, or did Jesus set the fish before the people?

            Byzantine Text:  Jesus commanded that the fish was to be set before the people

            Sinaiticus:  Jesus set the fish before the people

● 22.  Does Mark 8:25 say that Jesus, when He laid hands on the blind man, made him look up?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no  

● 23.  In Mark 8:26, did Jesus tell the man whose sight was restored that he was not to tell anyone in the village?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 24.  In Mark 8:29, did Peter say, “You are the Christ,” or “You are the Christ, the Son of God”?

            Byzantine Text:  “You are the Christ.”

            Sinaiticus:  “You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

            The text in À has been expanded via a partial harmonization to Matthew 16:16.

● 25.  In Mark 9:3, did Mark describe the clothing worn by Christ during the Transfiguration as “very white, like snow” or simply as “very white”?

            Byzantine Text:  “very white, like snow”

            Sinaiticus:  “very white”  

● 26.  In Mark 9:9, did Jesus tell Peter and James and John that they should tell no one about the Transfiguration when the Son of Man is risen from the dead?

            Byzantine Text:  no; He said to tell no one until then

            Sinaiticus:  yes

            Apparently the copyist of À deleted the words ει μη due to a concern that readers might misconstrue the double negative construction in the verse.

● 27.  Were the Pharisees mentioned in the question in Mark 9:11?

            Byzantine Text:  no, only the scribes

            Sinaiticus:  yes, the scribes and Pharisees are both mentioned

● 28.  In Mark 9:24, did the father of the afflicted child cry out with tears?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 29.  In Mark 9:29, did Jesus say that a particular kind of unclean spirit could only be exorcised with prayer and fasting?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no, only “with prayer.”
            This textual contest is particularly interesting because, when combined with the textual contest in Matthew 17:21, the text of Sinaiticus is incapable of teaching the same thing that the Byzantine Text teaches on the subject of exorcism.

● 30.  In Mark 9:42, did Jesus refer to little ones who believe in Me, or simply to little ones who believe?

            Byzantine Text:  little ones who believe in Me

            Sinaiticus:  little ones who believe

● 31.  Are Mark 9:44 and 9:45b-46 included in the text, repeating for emphasis what is stated in 9:48?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 32.  Does Mark 9:49 conclude with the words, “And every sacrifice shall be salted with salt”?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 33.  Does Mark 10:7 include the phrase “and cleave unto his wife”?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 34.  In Mark 10:24, did Jesus say that it is hard for those who trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of heaven, or did He say that it is hard to enter into the kingdom of heaven?

            Byzantine Text:   it is hard for those who trust in riches

            Sinaiticus:  it is hard

            Sinaiticus has some allies here, such as B W Δ Ψ.  A parableptic error accounts for the shorter reading, inasmuch as the word for “is” (εστιν) ends with the same two letters as the last word in the disputed phrase, “riches” (χρήμασιν).  

● 35.  How does Peter’s statement in Mark 10:28 end?

            Byzantine Text:  we have left everything and followed You.

            Sinaiticus:  Therefore, what shall be ours?

            The text of À has been expanded via a harmonization to Matthew 19:27.

● 36.  Is one’s wife included in the list in Mark 10:29?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 37.  In Mark 10:30, what is included in the list of what may be received?

            Byzantine Text:  houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands – with persecution.

            Sinaiticus:  nothing is in the verse between “in this time” and “and in the world to come, life eternal.”

● 38.  Are the scribes mentioned in Mark 10:33?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            The short reading in À is a symptom of parablepsis, και to και.

● 39.  In Mark 10:35, what do James and John say, and how does Jesus answer in verse 36?

            Byzantine Text:  they say, “Teacher, we desire that You grant to us whatsoever we desire,” and Jesus replies, “What is it that you desire Me to do for you?”

            Sinaiticus:  they say, “Teacher, we desire,” and the rest of verse 35 is missing.  All of verse 36 is also missing, and the first part of verse 37 is also missing.  The text resumes with “that one may be seated on Your right hand.”

            Apparently the line of sight of the copyist of À drifted from the word ινα (“that”) in verse 35 to the same word in verse 37, skipping all the words in between.

● 40.  How does Mark 10:40 end?

            Byzantine Text:  “for whom it has been prepared.”

            Sinaiticus:  “for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”

            The text of À has been expanded via harmonization to Matthew 20:23.

● 41.  How did Jesus describe the village where the disciples were to find the colt in Mark 11:2?

            Byzantine Text:  “across from you” (also rendered as “opposite you”)

            Sinaiticus:  there is no particular description; it is just “the village”

            The shorter reading in À is probably to be accounted for by a parableptic error in which the copyist’s line of sight drifted from the final letter of κώμην (“village”) to the final letter of “you” (υμων).

● 42.  Does Mark 11:23 end with the phrase “whatever he shall say”?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 43.  What does Jesus say in Mark 11:26?

            Byzantine Text:  “But if you do not forgive, neither shall your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

            Sinaiticus:  nothing; the verse is not there.

            The shorter reading in the Alexandrian Text is accounted for by a parableptic error in which an early copyist’s line of sight drifted from the words τα παραπτώματα υμων (“your trespasses”) at the end of verse 25 to the same words at the end of verse 26, skipping all the words in between.

● 44.  In Mark 12:25, does Jesus affirm that in the resurrection, no one marries?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no; Jesus only affirms that no one is given in marriage (the words ουτε γαμουσιν are absent)

            The shorter reading in À looks like a symptom of scribal inattentiveness; the copyist’s line of sight drifted from one occurrence of ουτε to the next occurrence.

● 45.  Is the phrase “and with all the soul” in Mark 12:33?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 46.  How many times is Jesus called “Teacher” in Mark 13:1?

            Byzantine Text:  once

            Sinaiticus:  twice

● 47.  It is easier to simply describe the weirdness of Sinaiticus’ text of Mark 13:8 than to present it in a comparison to the Byzantine Text:  the copyist of À wrote “kingdom” instead of “kingdom against kingdom,” and after “earthquake” (σεισμοι), a segment of text is missing; the text resumes with αρχη ωδείνων ταυτα (“These are the beginnings of sorrows”).  It appears that the copyist was very inattentive; besides omitting “kingdom against,” his line of sight also drifted from the letters at the end of σεισμοι to the same letters at the end of λιμοι.

● 48.  In Mark 13:14, does Jesus affirm that the abomination of desolation is mentioned by the prophet Daniel?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 49.  Does Mark 14:19 include the phrase, “And another, ‘Is it I?’”

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 50.  In Mark 14:22, in what order does Jesus give thanks for the bread, and break it?

            Byzantine Text:  He blessed it, and broke it

            Sinaiticus:  he broke it, and blessed it

● 51.  In Mark 14:30, did Jesus mention that the rooster would crow two times?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 52.  Do the false witnesses in Mark 14:58 say that they heard Jesus saying something?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

            Apparently somewhere in the transmission-stream of À, a copyist accidentally skipped from οτι at the beginning of the verse to its next occurrence, thus losing the words in between; another copyist attempted to salvage the omission by inserting ειπεν.

● 53.  What did the high priest ask in Mark 14:61?

            Byzantine Text:  Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?

            Sinaiticus:  Are you the Christ, the Son of God?

● 54.  Does Mark 14:68 say that a rooster crowed?

            Byzantine Text: yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 55.  In Mark 14:71, did Peter say, “I do not know that man of whom you speak,” or, “I do not know the man”?

            Byzantine Text:  I do not know that man of whom you speak.

            Sinaiticus:  I do not know the man

● 56.  Does Mark 14:71 say that a rooster crowed a second time?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no

● 57.  Does Mark 15:28 mention the fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah 53:12?

            Byzantine Text:  yes

            Sinaiticus:  no; the entire verse is absent

● 58.  Does Mark affirm that Jesus was seen by Mary Magdalene after He arose from the dead?

            Byzantine Text:  yes (in Mark 16:9)

            Sinaiticus:  no; the text of Mark on the replacement-sheet in Sinaiticus stops at the end of 16:8.

● 59.  In the Gospel of Mark, does Jesus instruct His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel?

            Byzantine Text:  yes (in Mark 16:15)

            Sinaiticus:  no; the text of Mark on the replacement-sheet in Sinaiticus stops at the end of 16:8.

● 60.  Does Mark record that Jesus ascended to the right hand of God?

            Byzantine Text:  yes (in Mark 16:19, as affirmed by Irenaeus)

            Sinaiticus:  no; the text of Mark on the replacement-sheet in Sinaiticus stops at the end of 16:8.

           While some of these differences are minor, such as the repetition in 13:1, others involve a difference between a true statement in the Byzantine Text and an error in the text in Sinaiticus, such as in 1:28 and 6:22.  In other cases, the text in Sinaiticus has been expanded via harmonization, such as in 2:12, 8:29, and 10:28.  In other cases, it has been shortened due to a scribal error, such as in 1:32-33, 1:34, 3:8, 4:28, 6:7-8, 6:27-28, 10:35-37, 11:2, 12:25,  13:8, and 14:58.  When one goes from the Byzantine Text of Mark to the text of Mark written by the copyist of Sinaiticus, much more than Mark 16:9-20 disappears; within Mark 1:1-16:8 there is, added up, practically a whole chapter’s worth of verses in Sinaiticus that that have been significantly changed due to scribal corruptions.



Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.