In chapter 1:2 The Revisers have rightly abandoned “in the prophets” though given in the Alex. and most other MSS, because it is an evident correction made to ease the difficulty. The Sinai, Vatican, Cambridge of Beza, Parisian (L) and St. Gall uncials, with some twenty-five cursives, the most ancient versions and express early citations, preserve the true text, “in Isaiah the prophet.” Even on human ground it is absurd to suppose that the writer did not know that the first words quoted were from Mal. 3:11Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 3:1); and if inspiration be allowed, the only question is as to the principle of thus merging a secondary in a primary quotation. Compare the somewhat different use of “Jeremiah” rather than Zechariah in Matt. 27. 9,10. There is purpose in both, which cursory readers have not seen; and so they have been quick to impute a slip, as the later copyists were to eliminate it. But it is as irreverent as unwise and evil to obscure or deny the truth even in such points as these, because the modes of scripture application differ from those of ordinary men, and we may not at a first glance be able to appreciate or clear up the profound wisdom of inspiration. Duster's conjecture that the reading was originally “in the prophet” seems a mere effort to get rid of what he did not understand; which really, like such attempts generally, leaves the chief point where it was—Verse 14, “of the kingdom” disappears with good reason, though most uncials and cursives insert the words, the old versions being pretty evenly divided. It is an addition borrowed from Matthew, whose Gospel it suits perfectly.
In chapter 2:1, 20 an article is needlessly inserted. Translate “at home” in contrast with being abroad or elsewhere, and “days will come.” At the end of the latter verse “in that day” has the best authority, not “in those days,” which came in from the corresponding passage of Luke 5—The end of verse 12 is simply “thus,” “on this fashion” being antiquated.
In chapter 3: 13, as in Matt. 5:1,1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: (Matthew 5:1) the indefinite article appears wrongly in the Authorized Version, the Revised gives “the” correctly, not meaning any particular mountain, but the high land as contrasted with the low or plain, as on board ship or on the sea is in contrast with on the shore. In verse 14 the Revisers rightly give “appointed” instead of the equivocal “ordained.” They are no less fair in striking out the “ordained to be” of Acts 1:22,22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:22) and in changing “ordain” to “appoint” in Titus 1:55For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5). They would have done better in giving “chosen” in Acts 14:2323And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23) and 2 Cor. 8:19,19And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind: (2 Corinthians 8:19) as they do in Acts 10:41,41Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. (Acts 10:41) though “appoint” is no doubt a legitimate rendering of χειροτονέω.—The chief change of text is in verse 29, “guilty of an eternal sin,” instead of “in danger of,” or “subject to eternal judgment.” “Damnation,” as is well known, is not the true force of κρίσεως, though its effect. But the true reading on excellent authority appears to be ἁμαρτήματος, “sin” or “guilt,” which might naturally be toned down into judgment. It is more forcible and absolutely expressed than even in Matthew, where blaspheming against the Spirit is said to be irremissible, either in this age, that is, of the law, or in that which is to come, that is, of Messiah reigning over the earth, when all other iniquities are forgiven, and all diseases are healed.
There are many minute changes in chapter 4, but the only correction of version one would notice is the unquestionably right one of “in the stern sleeping on the cushion,” instead of “in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow” in verse 38.
In chapter 5:36 it is well to remark the παρακούσας of the critical editors instead of the [εὐθέως] ἀκ. of the common text. But it is doubtful whether the marginal “over-hearing” should not rather have taken the place of the Revisers' text “not heeding,” which would have suited if the Lord had said nothing. But He heeds the word spoken enough to bid the synagogue-ruler, “Fear not, only believe.”
The latter half of chapter 6:11 seems an accommodation from Matt. 11 and Luke 10 with changes. Yet the ancient testimony is so ample (eleven uncials, nearly all the cursives, and some of the best versions) that it surprises one to see no remark on such a difference in the margin of the Revisers. In the footnotes of the corresponding Greek text Mr. E. Palmer of course gives the words,—The rendering of a phrase in verse 20 as well as the reading after it is questionable. Does συνετήρει αὐτόν mean “kept him safe,” or “paid close attention to him"? and is the true reading “was perplexed,” ἠπόρει (à B L Cop.) or the far more largely supported ἐποίει, which their margin renders?
Chapter 7:8 presents a difficulty of translation if not of reading. Tischendorf now adopts πυκνά from the Sinaitic copy, confirmed perhaps by some Latin and other versions; but the mass of authority sustains πυγμῆ, lit. “with the fist,” or “up to the elbow,” the usual construing being “diligently” or “frequently,” with “vigor” or “with nicety.” The addition in italics at the end of verse 11 is rightly omitted by the Revisers, as in Matt. 15:55But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; (Matthew 15:5) also; but a serious Italic supplement appears in verse 19, This he said. Here again is the preliminary question of καθαρίζων and καθαρίζον, the former undoubtedly carrying much the most weight externally, if one did not bear in mind how carelessly the best MSS interchange ω and ο, which almost nullifies their suffrages on the point. The strange version of the Revisers seems due to Origen (Comm. in Matt. 15:1010And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: (Matthew 15:10)). K. usually is regarded, if in the neuter, as in apposition with the sentence; if in the masculine, as appended in an independent construction, with the gender conformed to τὁν ἀφεδρῶνα, the departure from formal grammar giving the more force to the participle. Indeed καθαρίζει, and καὶ καθαρίζει are found in some copies, all indicative of the difficulty presented by the construction.
In chapter 8:24, 25, of the Revised Version, we have the healing of the blind man more graphically than in the common text and version. “I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking.” Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes, and he looked steadfastly (διέβλεψε) and was restored and saw all things clearly (ἐνέβλεπε τηλαυγῶς [Tisch. δηλ.] ἅπαντα).
In chapter 9: 23 the oldest and best authorities omit πιστεῦσαι, though it has large uncial support. Perhaps its difficulty may have led to the omission. If genuine, the true meaning is not the muddle of two clauses as in the Authorized Version, but rather the “If thou canst [is] to believe.” The question of power turns on faith. In verse 24, 29, the evidence is strong against μετὰ δακρύων ("with tears"), weak against καὶ νηστεία, “and fasting;” but the Revisers leave both out, as they do verses 44, 46, none omitting verse 48. Some of these witnesses leave out the latter half of 49, followed by our Revisers. The substance of the truth abides no doubt; but the solemnity of the warning appears to be enfeebled in the curtailed form; and the distinction between the wicked and righteous as tested by God's judgment moral in grace or final in verse 49.
The Revisers, on few but first-rate authorities, read in 10:1 “and” beyond Jordan, for the A. V. “by.”
In chapter 11: 8 they read “fields” (ἀγρῦν) instead of “branches” (δένδρυν), with other small changes.
In chapter 12: 6 the Revisers omit “his,” and in verse 20 “therefore” on firm grounds, and for “God” give “He” in verse 32.
There is no doubt that “spoken of by Daniel the prophet” is an importation into chapter 13:14 from Matt. 24. But there is an interesting though dubious reading in the same verse, “standing where [he] ought not” ἑστηκὀτα B L and so Tisch. Tregelles, Afford), instead of ἑστός (Steph.), ἑστώς (Elz. Griesbach, Scholz), ἑστηκός Lachmann and Green), στηκόν (seven cursives). If the masculine be well founded, it points to the Antichrist, the lawless one of 2 Thess. 2:44Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4). But why should the Revisers perpetuate “her parable,” “her branch with its leaves” here, verse 28, as in Matt. 24:3232Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: (Matthew 24:32)? Why not “its,” especially as in Rev. 22:2 They correct “her” into “its fruit"?
In chapter 14 among other changes less noteworthy are the omission of “eat,” verse 22, and of “now,” verse 24, at the Lord's Supper, and the insertion of “thou” emphatically, verse 30, the best MSS substituting ἔλαβον “received” for ἔβαλλον for “did strike” in verse 65, and omitting the last clause of verse 70.
The Revisers put most undeservedly a certain stigma on chapter 6: 9-20, because à B omit these verses, L with a break adding a miserable compendium, and many cursives giving them with more or less doubt. No good version of antiquity omits. But a few fathers on harmonistic grounds talk of the accurate copies ending with ἐφοβοῦντο γἀρ. We need not now discuss the alleged internal reasons against the paragraph. The positive external proofs are really overwhelming; and the internal prove not only that it is inspired scripture, but from none other than Mark himself.