No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Anger Issues: Mark 1.41 in Ephrem the Syrian, the Old Latin Gospels and Codex Bezae*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2017
Abstract
While the vast majority of manuscripts portray Jesus in Mark 1.41 as ‘moved to compassion’ (σπλαγχνισθείς) before healing a leper, five putative witnesses in three languages depict him ‘becoming angry’ (ὀργισθείς/iratus). Following Hort's dictum that ‘knowledge of documents should precede final judgments on readings’, this article offers the first thorough examination of the witnesses to ‘anger’, with the result that the sole putative Syriac witness is dismissed, the Old Latin witnesses are geographically isolated, and the sole Greek witness linked to the Old Latin as a Greek–Latin diglot. Since the final grounds for Jesus’ ‘anger’, that it is the lectio difficilior, also prove insubstantial, σπλαγχνισθείς is concluded to be original, with ‘anger’ originating in the Old Latin manuscript tradition.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017
Footnotes
*
An earlier draft of this article was presented at Princeton Theological Seminary's New Testament Research Colloquium (2016); I am indebted to the participants for their probing questions and comments, especially to respondents C. Clifton Black and James Neumann. Any remaining deficiencies are my own. I am also indebted to Princeton's Ph.D. Studies Office for providing for expenses associated with the manuscript images.
References
1 All translations are the author's unless otherwise noted.
2 For a list of scholars in favour of ὀργισθείς, see Greeven, H., ‘Mk 1,41’, Textkritik des Markusevangeliums (ed. Greeven, H. and Güting, E.; TFW 11; Münster: LIT, 2006) 120–1Google Scholar.
3 Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. ii (London: Macmillan, 1896 2) 31Google Scholar.
4 A brief note: I am not arguing against ὀργισθείς on theological grounds, and I began my research intending to argue for its primacy. It should be read and studied as part of Mark's ‘living text’ ( Parker, D. C., The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar). But, as we shall see, it falls short of being the obvious choice for Mark's Ausgangstext, and several issues related to it have not been attended to.
5 Michaelis, J. D. discusses the variation unit already in Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Bundes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1788) 585 Google Scholar.
6 Ehrman, B. D., ‘A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus’, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 33; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 120–41Google Scholar.
7 Ehrman, ‘Leper ’, 123.
8 Ehrman, ‘Leper’, 125. This argument is most convincingly presented by Vaganay, L., ‘Marc i,41: essai de critique textuelle’, Mélanges Emmanuel Podechard (Lyons: Facultés Catholiques, 1945) 237–52Google Scholar, at 249.
9 Ehrman, ‘The Text of the Gospel at the End of the Second Century’, Studies, 96 (emphasis original).
10 Mark 9.22 par. Though Jesus’ compassion is requested and not explicitly shown, J. Marcus identifies Jesus' response as compassionate ( Mark 8–16 (AB 27A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 661 Google ScholarPubMed). Further, for Marcus Jesus heals ‘when’ the crowd forms, perhaps out of concern for triggers to the boy's epilepsy (ibid., 655). For Ehrman, Jesus’ healing is self-serving: ‘When Jesus sees a crowd forming – and only then – he performs the miracle’ (‘Leper’, 138).
11 Note also Matthew's addition of σπλαγχνισθείς to Q 18.42 || Mark 10.52. Here, Matt 20.34 parallels Mark 1.41 with a proximal sequence (σπλαγχνισθείς … ἥψατο … εὐθύς/εὐθέως) found in no other antecedent Greek literature, intimating Matthew's knowledge of σπλαγχνισθείς in Mark 1.41.
12 Matthew and Luke do use ὀργίζομαι, especially in parables that characterise God's eschatological judgement: Matt 18.34; 22.7 || Luke 14.21. Cf. Matt 5.22; Luke 15.28. P.Egerton 2.1r also lacks a participle, and much else, in this pericope, though it has ἐμβρειμ[ησάμενος] elsewhere (fr. 2r). Its relation to the Synoptic tradition is unresolved ( Nicklas, T., Gospel Fragments: The ‘Unknown Gospel’ on Papyrus Egerton 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 42–64 Google Scholar, 76–89).
13 Ehrman, ‘Leper’, 125–6.
14 For συλλυπέω in the passive voice meaning ‘sympathise’, see LSJ s.v. ii; Ps 68.21 LXX (NETS). BDAG renders it as ‘be grieved with, feel sympathy’, though as ‘deeply grieved at’ for Mark 3.5.
15 Mark 5.19 par.
16 ‘Leper’, 129.
17 ‘Leper’, 129; elsewhere citing Mark 3.5; 8.12; 9.23; 10.14 (132).
18 ‘Leper’, 130.
19 See J. K. Elliott's methodological suggestions (‘Using an Author's Consistency of Usage and Conjectures as Criteria to Resolve Textual Variation in the Greek New Testament’, NTS 62 (2016) 122–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
20 ‘Leper’, 130.
21 ‘Leper’, 131.
22 Obviously I exclude Mark 1.41 (for σπλαγχνίζομαι and ὀργίζομαι).
23 ‘Leper’, 131.
24 Indeed, does the teaching about the kingdom belonging to ‘such as these’ pertain only to children with maladies or, as Jesus says, simply to children (παιδία, Mark 10.14)?
25 ‘Leper’, 131.
26 ‘Mark mentions no miracles’ ( Gundry, J. M., ‘Children in the Gospel of Mark’, The Child in the Bible (ed. Bunge, M. J. et al. ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 143–76Google Scholar, at 150).
27 ‘Leper’, 120.
28 ‘Any construction of the passage which makes it to be the leper with whom Jesus is angry’, notes E. Bevan, ‘seems to be hopeless’ (‘Note on Mark i 41 and John xi 33, 38’, JTS 33 (1932) 186–8Google Scholar, at 187; emphasis original). Cf. John 11.33, 38, where ἐμβριμάομαι is an internal emotion rather than an externally expressed one (‘greatly disturbed’, NRSV).
29 ‘Leper’, 132–3.
30 Again, excluding Mark 1.41 for either word.
31 Externally, is compassion or anger more typical to a healing narrative? Apollonius of Tyana is angry before an exorcism (Vit. Apoll. 4.20), but not a healing. John 11.33, 38 are difficult to judge. By contrast, compassion (εὐσπλαγχνία) appears with healing in messianic contexts in Second Temple Judaism (T. Zeb. 9.8), the Apostolic Fathers (Herm. 60.4; 66.4), and NT Apocrypha (Acts John 24). Though external grounds are not decisive (a narrative can be unique), compassion in Mark 1.41 is more likely.
32 I am indebted to Philip M. Forness for commenting, with his considerable Syriac expertise, on an earlier draft of this section. Any remaining deficiencies are entirely my own.
33 For a comprehensive list, see Baarda, T., ‘Mk 1.41: ὀργισθείς. A Reading Attested for Mar Ephraem, the Diatessaron, or Tatian’, ZNW 103 (2012) 291–5Google Scholar, at 291.
34 McCarthy, C., trans., Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation (JSSSup 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 202–3Google Scholar. Translation modified after consulting the Syriac ( Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant: texte syriaque (ed. Leloir, L.; CBM 8; Dublin: Hodges, 1963) 96 Google Scholar). Cf. Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant: version arménienne (ed. Leloir, L.; CSCO 137; Louvain: Orientaliste, 1953) 173–5Google Scholar.
35 Haelewyck, J.-C., ‘Application à Marc 1,40–45’, Manuel de critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament (Brussels: Safran, 2014) 262 Google Scholar. M. A. Proctor argues that the readings are external ‘text-critical equals’ on the basis of Ephrem's witness (and by extension Tatian); but if Ephrem does not ‘faithfully preserve the wording of Tatian's Diatessaron’, Proctor's external argument fails (‘The “Western” Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus’ (Ph.D. diss.; Baylor University, 1999) 82).
36
(rg̱ez) for ὀργίζομαι in Matt 5.22; 18.34; Luke 14.21; 15.28. Exod 32.19 has 
(ʾettp̱īr) where the LXX has ὀργισθεὶς θυμῷ, but the Syriac is a rendering of Hebrew, not Greek. In Syriac rendering Greek, (ʾettp̱īr) is used for διαπονηθείς in Acts 16.18 and παροξύνεται in 1 Cor 13.5, but never in the Old Syriac Gospels, only the NT Peshitta, which postdates Ephrem. Thus Proctor errs in saying that Ephrem has ‘the Syriac equivalent for ὀργισθείς, namely pur’ (‘Angry Jesus’, 67 n. 79).
37 See the caveats of Osburn, C. D., ‘Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism’, NovT 47 (2005) 313–43Google Scholar.
38 UBS5 45*, 60*. Would that the committee had followed its own counsel at Mark 1.41, where they cite ‘(Diatessaron)’. As Baarda notes, ‘it is not wholly clear what the brackets mean here (despite the explanation on p. 47*)’ (‘Mk 1.41’, 292 n. 16).
39 All extant versions of the Diatessaron either lack an emotion (cf. Matt 8.3; Luke 5.13) or have ‘compassion’ (Arabic §22.4).
40 Cf. Mark 1.43 (
waḳʾāʾ, Sinaiticus; also Peshitta). On the ‘angry’ emotional valence of ἐμβριμησάμενος, see
Marcus, J., Mark 1–8 (AB 27; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 206
Google Scholar.
41 Lake, K., ‘ἘΜΒΡΙΜΗΣΑΜΕΝΟΣ and ὈΡΓΙΣΘΕΙΣ, Mark 1,40–43’, HTR 16 (1923) 197–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 197 n. 1.
42 But see Proctor, ‘Angry Jesus’, 55.
43 A’ and B’ have been transposed for the sake of presentation. If Stanza 2 B’ were not associated with Stanza 1 B, it would be the only couplet without analogue, unlikely in Ephrem's orderly poem.
44 Brock, S., trans., Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's, 1990) 165–6Google Scholar. Syriac from Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers: Hymnen de Paradiso (ed. Beck, E.; CSCO 174; Leuven: Peeters, 1957) 52–3Google Scholar.
45 Harris, J. R., ‘Artificial Variants in the Text of the New Testament’, The Expositor 24 (1922) 254–61Google Scholar (260); Baarda, ‘Mk 1.41’, 293. NB: I am only arguing for Ephrem's familiarity with ‘compassion’, not that he be used as a textual witness to it.
46 ‘Angry Jesus’, 79–80. Proctor further claims that, though both Tatian and Ephrem had ὀργισθείς, this reading disappeared from every copy in every language of the Diatessaron through omission. This means that every Diatessaron witness coincidentally dealt with the variant in the same way (omission), the way in which Proctor also suggests Matthew, Luke and some scribes of Mark 1.41 (e.g. b) dealt with it. This scenario relies far too heavily on multiple coincidences.
47
(ʾet̠raḥam) in Sinaiticus, also Peshitta and Harclean; Curetonian lacks this pericope and most of Mark (see
Kiraz, G. A., Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, vol. ii (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 15
Google Scholar).
48 Petersen, W. L., ‘The Dependence of Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac Ephrem’, Patristic and Text-Critical Studies (NTTSD 40; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 47–61 Google Scholar.
49 Romanos le Mélode: Hymnes (SC 110.375). Romanos uses οἰκτίρμων and ἐλεήμων, but hardly a word of his dramatisation repeats the Synoptic accounts verbatim; such would be unliterary.
50 Petersen: ‘there exist more direct, literary parallels between Romanos and the combination of Ephrem and the Diatessaron, than with any other known source, biblical or Patristic’ ( Petersen, W. L., The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Melodist (CSCO 475; Leuven: Peeters, 1985) 199 Google Scholar).
51 Greeven thought σπλαγχνισθείς original but could not explain Ephrem: ‘Rätselhaft bleibt nur, wie sie in Efrems Kommentar … gelangt ist’ (‘Mk 1,41’, 120). Hopefully we have provided a satisfying solution to this riddle.
52 The word spans two folios (ira-tus) but is clear. Multispectral images (forthcoming) of fols. 328–9 have been kindly provided by Gregory Heyworth, director of the Lazarus Project (www.lazarusprojectimaging.com/). For the array of dates in scholarship, including a minority who argue it is fourth–fifth century, see Metzger, B. M., The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977) 296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Scrivener, F. D. A., A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, 1883 3) 340 Google Scholar.
54 So Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 340; Gregory, C. R., Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes, vol. ii (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1902) 599 Google Scholar; E. A. Lowe, CLA iv.467; Burton, P., The Old Latin Gospels (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001) 21 Google Scholar; Houghton, H. A. G., The Latin New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) 211 Google Scholar.
55 Buchanan, E. S., The Four Gospels from the Codex Corbeiensis (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907)Google Scholar vii.
56 Italy: CLA v.666; Burton, Gospels, 20; Houghton, Latin, 214. Gaul: Burkitt, F. C., Old Latin and the Itala (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896) 2 Google Scholar (specifically Corbie, Picardie); Buchanan, E. S., ‘The Codex Corbeiensis (ff)’, JTS 7 (1906) 252 Google Scholar.
57 See fol. 160v; digital image available through the Bibliotheque nationale de France (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9065916g/f160.item).
58 Cf. ff2 Mark 1.45 (conveniebat for conveniebant); 2.13 (veniebant for veniebat).
59 Parker, D. C., Codex Bezae (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He argues for Beirut ca. 400 ce. Cf. CLA ii.140.
60 Burton, Gospels, 23, 20.
61 Italy or Ireland: CLA ii.271; Berger, S., ‘De quatre manuscrits des Evangile conservés à Dublin’, Revue Celtique 6 (1883–5) 348–57Google Scholar, at 350. Ireland, ca. 600: Burton, Gospels, 23; Houghton, Latin, 65, 218. The difference between Irish and Italian provenance may not be as great as it seems: the path between them was well trodden; e.g. Columbanus travelled from Ireland to found a monastery in Bobbio, Italy, where he died in 615.
62 Fol. 151v; digital image used with permission of Trinity College Library Dublin (http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/home/#folder_id=36&pidtopage=MS55_001&entry_point=302). Further, r1* omits vis, creating a nonsense clause (Si potes me mundare; ‘if you can, be cleansed by me’?), which was corrected.
63 Misertus: aur c e f l q vg; miseratus: Ambr., Comm. Luc. 5.4; Codex Lindisfarnensis (Y; 7th–8th cent.); and hundreds of non-biblical texts (see the Library of Latin Texts s.v. ‘miseratus’).
64 See further Metzger, Early Versions, 312. Manuscripts with the same order but without ‘anger’ are W X b e f q Goth (Codex Argenteus).
65 Codex Basiliensis (E); see Petersen, Text-Critical Studies, 303–4.
66 Houghton, Latin, 188.
67 Greeven (‘Mk 1.41’, 120) notes that the manuscripts are localised (örtlich) without specifying further.
68 Or parablepsis with autem misertus → autem iratus. The former is well represented in the Old Latin manuscript tradition (aur c f l; also vg).
69 Ehrman, ‘Leper’, 127.
70 E.g. P. J. Williams notes that σπλαγχνίζομαι is rarer and therefore in some sense difficilior (‘An Examination of Ehrman's Case for ὀργισθείς in Mark 1:41’, NovT 54 (2012) 1–12 Google Scholar, at 8).
71 I leave aside the argument that scribes changed σπλαγχνισθείς to ὀργισθείς to fit the harshness of ἐμβριμησάμενος (1.43) (inter alios, Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., Notes on Select Readings (New York: Harper, 1881) 23 Google Scholar; Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994 2) 65Google Scholar).
72 Ehrman, ‘Leper’, 127.
73 Comm. Luc. 5.4 (SC 45.184). Presumably, a non-incarnate being cannot will (Photinus); a creature cannot command (Arius); an enlightened one would not touch sullied matter (Mani).
74 According to Origen, Princ. 2.4.4 (SC 252.288); Tertullian, Marc. 5.17.9 (ANF iii.466). Cf. Origen, Hom. Ezek. 1.1–3; Cels. 4.11.6; Comm. Rom. 1.18.
75 Pace Ehrman (‘scribes have changed [1.41] so that [Jesus] reacts in a way more appropriate for the kindly divine presence on earth’, Studies, 331). But divine wrath is an important and common category in early Christianity (Rom 1.18; 3.5; 9.22; 1 Thess 1.10; 5.9; LXX passim). Origen (Princ. 2.4.4) agrees that ‘both the Old and New Testament speak of God's ira’.
76 Ep. 69.10.
77 Fid. Grat. 2.5, 36; Off. 1.25.117, 42.17.
78 ANF (ix.504) here glosses ‘Marcion’.
79 Cf. Comm. Matt. 14.10, 11.
80 B. Aland, ‘Marcion’, TRE 22.89–101.
81 Apol. 1.26.5; B. Aland, ‘Marcion’, EncChr 3.384.
82 Frenschkowski, M., ‘Marcion in arabischen Quellen’, Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung (TUGAL 150; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002) 39–63 Google Scholar, at 45–9, 62.
83 Ehrman's attempt to contextualise using the controversy with ‘Celsus’ over the proper comportment of the one called ‘Son of God’ fails because (a) it lacks supporting evidence – Celsus never attacks Jesus’ anger, and Ehrman must ‘infer’ much (‘Leper’, 141 n. 30) – and (b) even if Celsus had, changing Mark 1.41 changes little. Celsus could still have attacked Jesus as wrathful using other texts (e.g. Mark 1.43; 3.5; John 2.13–22); and Origen could still have defended him as compassionate using other texts (e.g. Mark 6.34 par.; 8.2 par.; etc.). He did not need Mark 1.41 to ‘aid in the rebuttal of the charges against Jesus made by opponents like Celsus’ ( Metzger, B. M. and Ehrman, B. D., The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 4) 291–4Google Scholar).
84 As noted, the absence of μετ’ ὀργῆς from Matthew and Luke (Mark 3.5 par.) cannot be used as corroborative evidence since they omit both Jesus’ anger and his sympathy.
85 Surveying Mark 3.5; 8.12; 10.14 (for resources consulted, see n. 98). Ehrman thinks that scribes did not alter Mark 3.5 and 10.14 because Jesus’ anger is explicable there, whereas 1.41 is ‘far less obvious, and therefore far more open to misconstrual’ (‘Leper’, 127). But why, then, would scribes not also alter 1.43, where Jesus rebukes and expels the leper, especially right after they purportedly altered 1.41? And appealing to the inexplicability of ‘anger’ will not do since that increases the likelihood it resulted from scribal error. If one were to reply that ‘anger’ is consistent with rebuke and expulsion and thus likely original, then it is no longer the more difficult reading on narrative grounds – compassion is (I owe this last line of argument to Francis Watson).
86 Witnessing to the former: W Θ f 1.13 28 543 565 2542 Sys hmg Arm; witnessing to the latter: D X Θ f 1 13 it syh 2542 Sys hmg Arm.
87 (Ps.-)Irenaeus (TU 36/3.183–4).
88 I thank Christina Harker for this suggestion.
89 That is, while Ehrman and Wayne Kannaday ( Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition (TCS 5; Atlanta: SBL, 2004) 129–34Google Scholar) suppose some scribes disliked Jesus’ anger, we have demonstrated here that scribes often increased his anger.
90 Clerical mistake in Aland, K. and Aland, B., eds., Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. iv/1.2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998) 47 Google Scholar.
91 Cate, J., ‘The Unemotional Jesus in Manuscript 1358’, The Folio 28 (2011) 1 Google Scholar. The manuscript has an omission (cf. 169 505 508 l866).
92 Bezae, 1. Regrettably, his monograph does not consider Mark 1.41. J. K. Elliott similarly comments that D might only ‘preserve on occasion’ a ‘uniquely original text’ (‘Codex Bezae and the Earliest Greek Papyri’, New Testament Textual Criticism (NovTSupp 137; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 79–101 Google Scholar, at 100).
93 So Greeven, noting that Latin influence on the Greek column of bilingual texts ‘ist bekannt’ (‘Mk 1,41’, 120).
94 Parker argues that D/d had a bilingual exemplar (Bezae, 119).
95 All readings were done by the current author using digital images of D via the Cambridge University Digital Library (http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/1); the IGNTP transcription was consulted only at a secondary stage. In my study I assume that D features the same scribal hand throughout, though with several correctors, and supplementary leaves for Matt 3.8–16; John 18.14–20.13; Mark 16.16–20 (so Parker, Bezae, 23, 166–74). The supplementary leaves and Acts have been omitted from consideration, though neither contains the words surveyed.
96 The νχ spelling for γχ is not a general phenomenon in D (pace Scrivener, F. H. A., Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge: Deighton, 1864) xlvii Google Scholar). D faithfully transmits all instances of γχ forms or gives an acceptable variant spelling except in the case of σπλαγχνίζομαι. Further, the νχ spelling of σπλαγχνίζομαι is only attested elsewhere in a NT manuscript related to D (W: Matt 20.34; Mark 6.34) and never in extra-biblical literature. Thus the νχ spelling of σπλαγχνίζομαι should be labelled defective.
97 Ἀνακείμαι, ἐπιτάσσω, ἐπιτιμάω, παράγω, φιμόω and χορτάζω. Among these words, D produces no defective spellings and three variant spellings, which are all itacisms. The number of itacisms is typical; see Gignac, F. T., A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, vol. ii (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino-La Goliardica, 1975) 189 Google Scholar.
98 The method applied is equivalent to that of J. R. Royse for singular readings ( Scribal Habits in Early New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 65 Google Scholar). I have used Tischendorf, C., Novum Testamentum Graece (Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869 8 Google Scholar); von Soden, H., Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913 Google Scholar); Legg, S. C. E., Nouum Testamentum Graece: Euangelium secundum Marcum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1935)Google Scholar; idem, Nouum Testamentum Graece: Euangelium secundum Matthaeum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940 Google Scholar); IGNTP, The Gospel according to St. Luke (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984)Google Scholar; Swanson, R., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995)Google Scholar; Aland and Aland, Text und Textwert; UBS5; NA28. Readings have been confirmed with digital images wherever possible.
99 The variant spelling probably stems from confusion with the cognate εὔσπλαγχνος (Eph 4.32).
100 Eight variants in D (including Mark 1.41); eight in the MS tradition. Further, D has five singular spellings of σπλαγχνίζομαι.
101 The faint outline of the ‘Ν’ can be seen clearly and is not due to bleeding from the Latin recto, which does not extend this far.
102 I thank Joel D. Estes for this suggestion. On corrections in scribendo, see Havet, L., Manuel de critique verbal (Paris: Hachette, 1911)Google Scholar §§417, 850, 1091. In the event that this is not correction in scribendo, this would only strengthen my argument: the scribe would not have even recognised his mistake, only the later diorthotes did.
103 Digital image used with permission of Cambridge University Digital Library. On erasing ink on vellum in scribendo, see Royse, , ‘The Corrections in the Freer Gospels Codex’, The Freer Biblical Manuscripts (ed. Hurtado, L. W.; Atlanta: SBL, 2006) 185–226 Google Scholar, at 188, 190.
104 I hold this to be either D's scribe or one of his exemplars’. Since none of the latter are extant, D's difficulties with σπλαγχνίζομαι may be extrapolated to his exemplars. See further Parker, Bezae, 119.
105 I examined the Latin parallels to ὀργίζομαι and the Vulgate (wherever iratus) in d: Matt 2.16 (6r); 5.22 (13r); 18.34 (62r); 22.7 (74r); John 3.36 (114r); Luke 3.7 (194r); 14.21 (246r); 15.28 (250r); 21.23 (270r); Mark 1.41 (289r); 3.5 (292r).
106 Yet Parker (Bezae, 256) holds that the Greek verso was copied before the Latin recto, though not necessarily for D's exemplars.
107 See Parker, Bezae, 256: ‘Present opinion rightly discards the theory that wholesale Latinization of the Greek has occurred. However, the fact remains that in a number of places Latinization remains the best explanation of the text.’ So too Burton, Gospels, 22.
108 c d f ff2 i r1.
109 E.g. Galen, Hipp. 17a.757.5.
110 Williams (‘Mark 1:41’) argues that there are enough graphic similarities between CΠΛΑΓΧΝΙCΘΕΙC and ΟΡΓΙCΘΕΙC to account for an accident in transmission. In the abstract, Williams’ ingenious solution is plausible. But his and others' focus upon Greek transcriptional probabilities appears unwarranted in light of the extant Latin witnesses, especially because Codex a is likely earlier than D. Others have suggested that σπλαγχνισθείς could have been translated with iratus ( Harris, J. R., Codex Bezae (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891) 186–7Google Scholar; J. Cate, ‘Having a Gut Feeling for Anger: Mark 1:41 and Visceral Emotions’ (paper presented at the International Meeting of the SBL, London, July 2011)).