![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/55\/2018\/08\/2018-05-22-14.38.27_preview.jpg\")
<\/a>\nHere\u2019s another helpful post by Larry Hurtado\u2026..<\/p>\n
In earlier postings I\u2019ve noted that major variants continue to appear, and in some cases \u201csucceed\u201d in gaining widespread acceptance in the subsequent manuscript tradition as late as the fifth century and thereafter. There are also examples of interesting variants that first appear in the extant Greek manuscripts that late, but didn\u2019t \u201csucceed\u201d. Having done my PhD thesis on the text of the Gospel of Mark in Coldex W (the Freer Gospel codex), I\u2019ll cite a few interesting variants in this manuscript as examples.[1]<\/p>\n
I\u2019ll begin with a variant that is more well known, the so-called \u201cFreer Logion.\u201d This variant appears only in Codex W among extant Greek manuscripts after what we know as Mark 16:14 (in the \u201clong ending\u201d variant). Here is an English translation:<\/p>\n
And they excused themselves, saying, \u201cThis age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God.] Therefore reveal your justice now\u201d\u2014 thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, \u201cThe term of years of Satan\u2019s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of justice which is in heaven.\u201d[2]<\/p>\n
A version of this variant is attested as known to Jerome in some Greek manuscripts in the fourth century.[3] But Codex W is the only extant example. Metzger opined that the logion was probably first added to the text of the \u201clong ending\u201d of Mark by a \u201cscribe\u201d sometime in the second or third century \u201cto soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.\u201d[4] The ascription of the motive for the variant seems cogent, but, as with other \u201cintentional\u201d variants, we should more plausibly ascribe the Freer Logion to some unknown reader\/user of a copy of the Gospel of Mark.[5] But my main point is that, whatever its point of origin, this variant didn\u2019t \u201csucceed\u201d in being accepted into the manuscript tradition of Mark beyond Codex W.<\/p>\n
A far less well-known variant in the text of Mark in Codex W appears at Mark 1:3. Whereas the best-attested text in vv. 2-3 is a slightly variant quotation of Exodus 23:20 and Isaiah 40:3, in Codex W the quotation of Isaiah includes the whole of 40:3-8. Again, Codex W is the only witness in the Greek manuscript tradition for this variant. And again I think it likely that the variant arose in the course of someone reading the text and adding the words of Isaiah 40:4-8, perhaps originally as a marginal note. In any case, this is another variant of significant size that just didn\u2019t \u201csucceed\u201d.<\/p>\n
I cite now a third instance of a variant apparently unique to Codex W. This one is much smaller, but I judge it clearly intentional. I\u2019ll have to set the scene in Mark where the variant appears. In Mark 3:21, the best attested text refers to Jesus\u2019 \u201cassociates\/friends\u201d or (more likely here) his \u201crelatives\u201d (Greek: \u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) setting out to take Jesus in hand for they (or others?) judged him to have lost his senses (Greek: \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7).[6] In Codex W (and also Codex Bezae), however, those who sought to take Jesus in hand in v. 21 are \u201cthose around him, the scribes and the others\u201d (Greek: \u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 [\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd Codex D] \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9). Note that this shared variant involved \u201ccorrecting\u201d the preposition, changing \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 to \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9, and disambiguating the text further by specifying \u201cthose around him\u201d as \u201cscribes and the others.\u201d The effect (and the purpose) of this variant was clearly to avoid (\u201ccorrect\u201d) the idea that Jesus\u2019 family could have regarded him as needing to be seized.<\/p>\n
But in Codex W there is a further, and apparently distinctive, variant.[7] In place of the report that some were saying Jesus had lost his senses (\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7), Codex W has \u201cthey were saying \u2018he has made them his adherents\u2019.\u201d[8] This actually involved another minor change of two words. Instead of \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 (\u201che is beside himself\u201d), Codex W has \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, which means something like \u201cthey have become his adherents.\u201d The effect (and the purpose) was to avoid the suggestion that Jesus was thought by some to have become somewhat unhinged. It seems to me likely that an early reader of the passage, troubled by what the more familiar wording says, and thinking that it must be some mistake, sought to put things right. Note that this involved replacing \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 (exest\u0113) with a word that has a slight phonetic similarity, \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (ex\u0113rt\u0113ntai).<\/p>\n
It\u2019s pretty obvious that both of the variants in Codex W (the one shared with Codex Bezae and the one unique to Codex W) were motivated by a pious desire to avoid what seemed to some readers an embarrassing passage that could reflect badly either on Jesus\u2019 family or Jesus himself.[9] So it\u2019s all the more interesting that neither one \u201csucceeded\u201d in getting adopted into the subsequent textual tradition. Instead, the potentially \u201cembarrassing\u201d text was preferred! In short, if the variants in Codex Bezae and Codex W are examples of an attempt at what Ehrman colourfully termed \u201corthodox corruption\u201d of Mark, the attempts failed, and what is likely the originating form of the text was preferred and preserved.<\/p>\n
These interesting variants in Codex W illustrate both the creation of variants, likely by devout readers seeking to amplify (as in the variant in Mark 1:3) and\/or to correct the text (as in the \u201cFreer Logion\u201d and the variants in Mark 3:21), and also that such attempts didn\u2019t by any means always \u201csucceed\u201d in the subsequent manuscript tradition. As I\u2019ve emphasized repeatedly, the forces that generated such variants and that made for either their subsequent adoption or rejection deserve more attention.<\/p>\n
[1] A lightly revised version of my 1973 PhD thesis was published later: Larry W. Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark (\u201cStudies and Documents,\u201d 43; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).<\/p>\n
[2] Translation from Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 104. The Greek text (adapted slightly from the Nestle-Aland 28th edition apparatus): \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u00b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf \u00b5\u03b7 \u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u00b5\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u00b5\u03b9\u03bd. \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03b7\u03bd \u03b7\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf \u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b1\u00b5\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u00b5\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u00b5\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u00b5\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u00b5\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.<\/p>\n
[3] Jerome, Dialogues Against the Pelagians 2.15.<\/p>\n
[4] Metzger, Textual Commentary, 104.<\/p>\n
[5] In my own earlier work, such as my 1981 study, I unthinkingly echoed the ascription of such intentional changes to \u201cscribes\u201d. I have come to see, however, that we should grasp and distinguish the processes of copying and reading\/using texts more carefully. Basically, copyists copied; and \u201cintentional\u201d changes tended to be produced by users\/readers who took the time to study and puzzle over the text. As Zachary Cole has shown in his study of how the copyist of Codex W handled the designation of numbers, he rather mechanically reproduced his exemplar: Zachary J. Cole, \u201cEvalutating Scribal Freedom and Fidelity: Number-Writing Techniques in Codex Washingtonianus (W 032),\u201d Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 52 (2015): 225-38.<\/p>\n
[6] Those mention here are likely the family members who re-appear slightly later in Mark 3:31-35, which explains Jesus\u2019 response in vv. 33-35.<\/p>\n
[7] I discussed this variant in Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology, 77, and I also make reference to a couple of earlier discussions.<\/p>\n
[8] Codex Bezae has \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (\u201che has maddened them\u201d) instead of \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7.<\/p>\n
[9] There are actually a number of other variant readings in the manuscript tradition that show that various readers found Mark 3:21 a troubling text.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Here\u2019s another helpful post by Larry Hurtado\u2026.. In earlier postings I\u2019ve noted that major variants continue to appear, and in some cases \u201csucceed\u201d in gaining widespread acceptance in the subsequent manuscript tradition as late as the fifth century and thereafter. There are also examples of interesting variants that first appear in the extant Greek manuscripts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n