Mark 1:41

Mark 1:41 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]119
Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς σπλαγχνισθεὶς, ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, ἥψατο αὐτοῦ, καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι.

MSS: E, F (f74vc2), G (f67v-68r), S (f82rc1), Y, Ω (p168c2), 7, 8, 9, 438, 439 (f72rc1-2), 480, 481, 482 (f93v-94r), 652 (f109r), 700 (f94v), 1701 (f71v), ℓ339

Critical Apparatus :

(1) ο δε ιησους : A, C, E, F, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 7, 8, 9, 22, 438, 439, 480, 481, 482, 652, 700, 1582, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ1086
(2) και : א, B, D, 892
(3) σπλαγχνησθεις δε ο ιησους : L§

(4) σπλαγχνισθεις : א, A, B, C, E, F, G, M, S, W?, Y, Δ¹, Ω, 1, 7, 8, 9, 22?, 438, 439, 480, 481, 482, 652, 700, 892, 1582, 1701, ℓ339
(5) σπλαχνισθεις : K, Δ*, ℓ1086
(6) οργισθεις : D

(7) εκτεινας : A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 7, 8, 9, 22, 33, 438, 439, 480, 481, 482, 652, 700, 892, 1582, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ1086
(8) εκτινας : א, W

(9) χειρα : A, C, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Ω, 1, 7, 8, 9, 22, 33?, 438, 439, 480, 481, 482, 652, 700, 1582, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ1086
(10) χειραν : Δ
(11) χειρα αυτου : א, B, D, 892
(12) χειρ αυτου : L

(13) ηψατο αυτου : A, C, D, E, F, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 7, 8, 9, 22, 33?, 438, 439, 480, 481, 482, 652, 700, 1582, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ1086
(14) OMIT αυτου : א, B, L, 892

(15) και λεγει αυτω : A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, Y, Δ, Ω, 7, 8, 9, 438, 439, 480, 481, 482, 652, 700, 892, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ1086
(16) OMIT αυτω : 1, 22, 1582, א
(17) λεγων : W

(18) καθαρισθητι : א, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, S, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 7, 8, 9, 22, 438, 439, 480, 481, 482, 652, 700, 892, 1582, 1701, ℓ339
(19) καθαρισθιτι : ℓ1086
(20) καθαρισθητει : M, W

A Textual Commentary On Mark 1:41

(a) The article in the Edinburgh Review, to which allusion has just been made, repeats the charge of Latinising against the oldest MSS., and not against these only, but also sometimes (as in the passage just given) against even the numerical majority. A new theory is, however, brought forward, as explaining and accounting for the alleged “Latinising.”

After speaking of “the alteration of Greek MSS. from Latin ones” as a “fact,” “to which it would be desirable that the attention of scholars should be more carefully directed than has hitherto been the case,” the Reviewer develops his theory thus :-

“The main origin of the comparison of Greek MSS. with Latin ones, is probably to be looked for in the intercourse which took place between some of the principal ecclesiastics of the Greek church and the church of Rome, during the time of the Arian troubles. Among others, Athanasius and his successor Peter, in the fourth century, and John, also bishop of Alexandria, in the fifth, passed a considerable time at Rome, and probably brought from thence not only an intimacy with the Latin language, but also copies of the Scriptures as used in the Latin churches. Now nothing would be more natural than for the possessor of any one of these, when he found a discrepancy between the Greek codex used in his own church, and his new acquisition, to note the variation in the margin, either in Latin (as it existed) or in its Greek equivalent, or perhaps in both ; the former for his own satisfaction, the latter for the information of his successors who might not be ‘docti sermones utriusque linguæ.’”

The other case brought forward by the Reviewer is Mark i. 41, where, for the common reading σπλαγχνισθεὶς , the Codex Bezæ (D) has οργισθεις, and in the Latin iratus (which is found in Cod . Vercellensis , and one other Latin copy). The Reviewer supposes that iratus came from miseratus, misread in some Latin copy, and that οργισθεις sprang from a retranslation into Greek. This may possibly be the origin, but even then we might ask for some proof that any Latin copies ever read miseratus ; and it would be vain to argue from a peculiarity in the Codex Bezæ, as though we could generalise from such a point. But the notion of οργισθεις and iratus might just as well spring up from confounding this miracle of healing with the very different one in Mark iii. 5, where μετ’ οργης occurs. This passage is but a poor help to the theory, that Greek MSS. became conforned to the Latin through a comparison in the fourth century ; for one doubtful supposition cannot be rightly brought forward to strengthen another of the same kind.

So much, then, for the charge of Latinising, in its most recent form. The supposed fact should first be proved ; for until that is done, it is vain to invent theories to account for it. It may, however, be remarked, that Greeks were but little likely to introduce, or even to notice, Latin variations. If versions ever affected copies of the original, it could hardly have arisen, except among those to whom such versions were vernacular ; and Greek fathers show little proof of much acquaintance with Latin , acquired through residing in the West or otherwise.
(S.P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 200-201, 203)