>As might be known, there is a slight variant in the text of Mk.
>14:38. Sinaiticus, B f13 565, the text reads GRHGOREITE KAI
>PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH ELQHTE EIJ PEIRASMON. But Sinaitcus2 A C D L W
>Theta Psi 0012.0016 f1 and other witnesses, it reads GRHGOREITE KAI
>PROSEUXESQE, hINA MH EISELQHTE EIJ PEIRASMON (note the slight change
>in the verb after hINA MH). The second reading is in correspondence
>with Matt. 26:41//Lk. 22:40 and looks as if could be explained as
>assimilation to the Matthean and Lukan parallels. But the textual
>witness on its behalf seem too strong. Or, am I wrong in this? Are
>Sinaiticus and B and f13 usually thought to be superior to
>Sinaitcus2 A C D L W Theta Psi etc? Is the explanation of
>assimilation of Mark to Matt//Lk correct?
>I obviously don't know enough about the weight given to these
>witnesses to answer this myself, so I'm seeking the wisdom of the
>list.
I am not an expert on text criticism, but it would seem to me highly
likely that in a case like this one would prefer the non-assimilated
option. It would be most straightforward for a scribe to write
EISELQHTE instead of ELQHTE given the combined force of the minor
agreement between Matt. and Luke here, and the all-too-familiar
wording of the parallel in the Lord's Prayer. To replace EISELQHTE
with ELQHTE would be a less obvious thing to do.
I would imagine that Matthew and Luke in their redaction of Mark
14.38 have themselves assimilated Jesus' request to their versions of
the Lord's Prayer, just as Matt. in 26.42 has GENHQHW TO QELHMA SOU
(cf. Luke 22.42, contrast Mark 14.36).
Good wishes
Mark
------------------------
Mark Goodacre
Department of Theology
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham B15 2TT
Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512 Email: M.S.Goodacre@Bham.ac.uk
Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866 Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm