Re: ... and he answered saying to him
> Tischendorf indicated that especially in Mark assimilationsRight.
There are some instances of harmonization.
Mk 7:6 P45, A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, Maj, Latt, Sy-H
Mk 8:28 A, f1, Maj, Sy-H
Mk 9:12 A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-H
Mk 9:38 A, C, D, W, f1, f13, 565, 700, Maj, it, Sy-H
Mk 12:24 A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, 28, 565, 700, Maj, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-H
Mk 13:2 A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-H
Mk 13:5 A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-H
Mk 14:20 A, W, D, f1, f13, 565, 700, Maj, k, Sy-H
Lk 20:34 A, W, Theta, Psi, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Sy-S, Sy-H
I was thinking about the position Lk 20:24, where the Byzantine text has
APOKRIQENTES DE EIPON.
It appears probable that OI DE EIPAN has been changed here into APOKRIQENTES
DE EIPON to avoid repetition and to improve style.
OI DE EIPAN KAISAROS. O DE EIPEN PROS AUTOUS is rather dull. It is very
improbable that the change went the other way round.
The second APOKRIQENTES DE, some verses later, is safe. Also the other two
occurrences of APOKRIQENTES in Lk, 9:19 and 17:37, are safe.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
I recently posted on the ETC Blog (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/) the following entry: “SBLGNT: Three Questions and Replies.” In it I offer replies to three questions raised about the SBLGNT: 1) why were those four editions selected (long answer); is the NIV text viewed as “more standard” than the NA text (no); and would the outcome have been different if I had started with manuscripts rather than editions (I don’t think so). Many of you already will have the entry, but if not, you may find the answers of interest.