... Thanks for the update! Well, yes, right, the canon table notes it under the Lk/Mk agreements. So we can bring this down to the early 4th CE. Nevertheless IMessage 1 of 5 , Apr 2, 2010View Source
>> WW: "But ... of course the opposition is very strong:Thanks for the update!
>> 01, A, B, C, D, k, Sy-S etc."
> What about the Eusebian Canons, as a witness in favor of
> the verse?
Well, yes, right, the canon table notes it under the Lk/Mk
agreements. So we can bring this down to the early 4th CE.
Nevertheless I have problems to see why so important,
diverse witnesses should delete this verse.
I know of two arguments:
1. It has been omitted to harmonize the text with Mt.
2. Lectionary usage (many Byzantine minuscules omit), but
what exactly this lection was and why it omitted this verse
is not clear.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
Hi Folks, Mark 15:28 (KJB) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that thisMessage 1 of 5 , Apr 2, 2010View SourceHi Folks,
Mark 15:28 (KJB)
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith,
And he was numbered with the transgressors.
For I say unto you,
that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me,
And he was reckoned among the transgressors:
for the things concerning me have an end.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he hath poured out his soul unto death:
and he was numbered with the transgressors;
and he bare the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
Roger Pearse double-checked the reference, after noticing some stylistic incongruity, and now it looks like the Passion-time homily containing this reference actually belongs to Eusebius of Emesa, not Severian of Gabala - which puts this reference in the mid-300's, iirc. ... What about the Eusebian Canons, as a witness in favor of the verse?
So pro we have :
Eusebius of Emesa (c. 350AD)
"Peter drew his sword, which the Lord bade him take with him in order to fulfill every particular dispensation connected with His humanity; according to what S. Luke declares, that this saying should be fulfilled, "He was reckoned among the transgressors," a saying which the other Evangelists apply to Christ on the Cross."
Eusebian Canons (c. 325 AD)
Laparola apparatus has this listed as include, but also omit under "text".
Despite the fact that Dean Burgon shows that this evidence is overwhelming in Causes of Corruption and Last Twelve Verses.
Victor of Antioch (c . 425. AD)
Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348. (Causes of Corruption - Burgon)
is listed in the Laparola apparatus. Whether that is commentary is unclear.
Generally, I do not think they make that listing simply based on the Vulgate.
Four other listings are:
Origenvid Vigiliusvid Ps-Hippolytusvid
However, it is possible that these quotes do not show much to distinguish Mark from Luke. The Origen quote, in my brief checking , had an extra Markan relationship (the mention of the robbers as in Mark 15:27 next to the reference) (Contra Celsum VIII:54). Overall, why these are listed, and not others like Tertullian and Augustine, is an interesting question. That would seem to indicate that each one has a Markan marker, of some sort, even if mild.
"But ... of course the opposition is very strong: 01, A, B, C, D, k, Sy-S etc."
As Dean points out, the etc. supports the verse, many uncials, the great mass of cursives, and:
"the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic "
Causes of Corruption
Dean John Burgon
Take another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been hitherto read in all Churches as follows:'And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "And He was numbered with the transgressors."' In these last days however the discovery is announced that every word of this is an unauthorized addition to the inspired text. Griesbach indeed only marks the verse as probably spurious; while Tregelles is content to enclose it in brackets. But Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers eject the words '(GreeK) ' , from the text altogether. What can be the reason for so extraordinary a proceeding?
Let us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach's latest editor) that 'the quotation is not in Mark's manner; that the formula which introduces it is John's: and that it seems to be a gloss taken from Luke xxii. 37.' This is not criticism but dictation,imagination, not argument. Men who so write forget that they are assuming the very point which they are called upon to prove.
Now it happens that all the Uncials but six and an immense majority of the Cursive copies contain the words before us:that besides these, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur in exhibiting them:that the same words are expressly recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius;having a section ( / i.e. 216/8) to themselveswhich is the weightiest sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words of Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac sectional system (260/8), which is diverse from that of Eusebius and independent of it. What then is to be set against such a weight of ancient evidence? The fact that the following six Codexes are without this 28th verse, [Symbol: Aleph]ABCDX, together with the Sahidic and Lewis. The notorious Codex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony producible; to which Tischendorf adds 'about forty-five cursive copies.' Will it be seriously pretended that this evidence for omitting ver. 28 from St. Mark's Gospel can compete with the evidence for retaining it?
Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers before antiquity. Codex D is of the sixth century; Cod. X not older than the ninth: and not one of the four Codexes which remain is so old, within perhaps two centuries, as[Pg 77] either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We have Eusebius and Jerome's Vulgate as witnesses on the same side, besides the Gothic version, which represents a Codex probably as old as either. To these witnesses must be added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St. Mark's Gospel before either A or C were written .
It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have learned to regard whatever is found in B or [Symbol: Aleph] as oracular,'But is it credible that on a point like this such authorities as [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD should all be in error?'
It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it ceases to be even a matter of surprise. On the other hand, what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic) should have conspired to mislead mankind? And further, on what intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, and the whole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this verse of Scripture be indeed spurious?
I know that the rejoinder will be as follows:'Yes, but if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired verity, how is their absence from the earliest Codexes to be accounted for?' Now it happens that for once I am able to assign the reason. But I do so under protest, for I insist that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest Codexes is no part of a critic's business. It would not only prove an endless, but also a hopeless task. This time, however, I am able to explain.
If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the Bibliothèque at Paris for a Greek Codex numbered '71,' an Evangelium will be put into his hands which differs from any that I ever met with in giving singularly minute and full rubrical directions. At the end of St. Mark xv. 27, he will read as follows:'When thou readest the sixth Gospel[Pg 78] of the Passion,also when thou readest the second Gospel of the Vigil of Good Friday,stop here: skip verse 28: then go on at verse 29.' The inference from this is so obvious, that it would be to abuse the reader's patience if I were to enlarge upon it, or even to draw it out in detail. Very ancient indeed must the Lectionary practice in this particular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of its operation in our four oldest Codexes: but it has left it . The explanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, and the Codexes which leave it out are corrupt.
One word about the evidence of the cursive copies on this occasion. Tischendorf says that 'about forty-five' of them are without this precious verse of Scripture. I venture to say that the learned critic would be puzzled to produce forty-five copies of the Gospels in which this verse has no place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. that about half of these are Lectionaries),satisfactorily explains the matter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world, for the reason already assigned, these words are away; as well as in every MS. which, like B and [Symbol: Aleph], has been depraved by the influence of the Lectionary practice.
And now I venture to ask,What is to be thought of that Revision of our Authorized Version which omits ver. 28 altogether; with a marginal intimation that 'many ancient authorities insert it'? Would it not have been the course of ordinary reverence,I was going to say of truth and fairness,to leave the text unmolested: with a marginal memorandum that just 'a very few ancient authorities leave it out'?
 Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348.
 It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in the last year of his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See his Comment. Crit. Part ii. p. 190. 'Nec ulla ... debuerint.'