MARK 5:1 Gerashnw/n {C} Of the several variant readings, a majority of the Committee preferred Gerashnw/n on the basis of (_a_) superior external evidence (early representatives of both the Alexandrian and Western types of text), and (_b_) the probability that Gadarhnw/n is a scribal assimilation... [ Continue Reading ]
MARK 5:21 tou/ VIhsou/ @evn tw|/ ploi,w|# {C} Although a minority of the Committee regarded the phrase evn tw|/ ploi,w| as an early scribal insertion, added before tou/ VIhsou/ in W and after tou/ VIhsou/ in a great number of witnesses (including a A (B) C L D ¦13 33 1079 1241 _al_), the majority p... [ Continue Reading ]
MARK 5:22 ovno,mati VIa,i?roj It has sometimes been argued (e.g. by Vincent Taylor, _The Gospel According to St. Mark,_ p. 287) that the words ovno,mati VIa,i?roj are an early interpolation, because (1) they are absent from several Western witnesses (D ita, e, ff2, i); (2) the parallel account in M... [ Continue Reading ]
MARK 5:36 parakou,saj {B} The ambiguity of parakou,saj (“ignoring” or “overhearing”) led to its replacement in aa A C D K Q P _al_ by the Lukan parallel avkou,saj ( Luke 8:50).... [ Continue Reading ]
MARK 5:41 Taliqa koum The reading Tabiqa (without koum) in W 28 245 349 and several Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts is due to scribal confusion with the proper name in Acts 9:40. The curious reading of codex Bezae r`abbei qabita konmi seems to be a corruption of rabiqa, the transliteration of at'... [ Continue Reading ]