MARK 12:23 evn th|/ avnasta,sei @o[tan avnastw/sin# {C} The absence of o[tan avnastw/sin from a B C* D L W D Y _al_ is probably deliberate, having been omitted by copyists as superfluous (Matthew and Luke also omitted the words, probably for the same reason). It is hard to imagine that a copyist wo... [ Continue Reading ]
MARK 12:26 @o`# qeo.j … @o`# qeo,j {C} It is difficult to decide whether the weight of B D W, supporting the absence of the second and third instances of o`, is sufficient to counterbalance the weight of almost all other witnesses that include the article in all three instances. In order to repres... [ Continue Reading ]
MARK 12:34 @auvto,n# {C} Since the pronoun auvto,n forestalls the subject of the dependent clause (literally, “Jesus seeing him, that he answered wisely”), it is not surprising to find that it has been omitted by many copyists. On the other hand, in view of the weight of witnesses that lack the wo... [ Continue Reading ]
MARK 12:36 u`poka,tw {C} The parallel in the preferred text of Matthew ( Matthew 22:44) supports Mark’s substitution of u`poka,tw (B Dgr Y 28 syrs copsa, bo _al_) for the Septuagint’s u`popo,dion. Since the latter reading is quoted in Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:35, copyists would have tended to replace... [ Continue Reading ]
MARK 12:41 kaqi,saj kate,nanti tou/ gazofulaki,ou {B} The reading that best explains the origin of the others is preserved in a L D 892 ita, k _al_. Copyists were more likely to insert the words o` VIhsou/j in order to identify the subject than to delete them. Elsewhere Mark uses kate,nanti ( Mark... [ Continue Reading ]