- David Robert Palmer wrote:
While I am on this topic, what is the meaning of the
mathematical division sign that marks where these
words TON NAZARHNON are found in other manuscripts
except Codex Bezae, in 16:6? Some are calling it
What I am asking is, the scribe or editor or corrector
who inserted this sign, what judgment or conclusion is
he making about this textualvariant, if any? For
example, is he saying it is an accidental ommission,
or it is a more neutral mark, indicating the presence
of a variant?
I too am intrigued by the placement of TON NAZAPHNON
in the margins at 16:6. The variant is significant
for a number of reasons, and, no doubt, is linked to
the two other instances in the Gospel of Mark where
there are similar variants (Mk. 1:24 and 10:48). I
suppose one reason why it is placed in the margins is
because of the origin of the term NAZARHNE in Mark
(1:24 - column 3) where it appears on the lips of a
demonized man who refers to Jesus as "a Nazaraene of
Jesus" (cf. the variant SOU in Vaticanus).
Furthermore, in the second appearance (10:48 - column
55) Mark places the term NAZARHNE on the lips of a
small crowd in the Judean dialect, thus we read
"NAZWPAIOS." That the scribes of Sinaiticus probably
understood it this way, is supported by the variant
Judea vs. Gallilee in Mk 1: 28 (column 4). Hence, TON
NAZARHNON at 16:6 is placed in the margins, (a)
because this is the language of demons, and (b)
because the text of Mark in Sinaiticus supports this
theological interpretation. Finally, the handful of
variants that arose in other manuscripts around this
term, probably arose on account of a lack of
understanding as to the authorial intent of Mark's
Gospel. Yet, it is worth considering, if possibly the
Autograph contained TON NAZARHNON, and where.
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
$420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment!