Christian Texts and History • Close

.
Sinaiticus vs. Vaticanus & Washingtonianus vs. Bezae

Was Arimathea the home/birthplace of Joseph or was he just coming from there at that moment?

Mark 15:42 And evening having arrived already, since it was the Preparation, that is, the day before Sabbath, 43 having come Joseph from Arimathea, a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God, having boldness, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

‭

text variants	witnesses	meaning
Ἰωσὴφ ὁ ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας / Joseph the (one) from Arimathea	א A C L W* Θ Ψ f1 f13 Byz ς (NA [ὁ])	It means that Arimathea is the home/birthplace of Joseph
Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας / Joseph from Arimathea	B D Wc 083 28 al it vg syrs copbo(mss) WH	It may mean that Joseph only came from there at that moment

The latter meaning would be consistent with Mark 1:9, where Jesus is just coming from Nazareth at this moment.

JW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaJCZSp9CSk

Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

[/td]

Difficult Reading	Witness	Quality Witness Against	Defense Against	Significant Difference?
Mark 1:1 omission of [the Son of God]	Sinaiticus 3rd century papyrus Irenaeus Origen Serapion Basil Cyril Epiphanius Asterius Severian	Vaticanus Alexandrinus Bezae Washingtonianus Note that witness here is weakened by its variation	Manuscript = Homeoteleuton (accidental skipping due to similar near words) Patristic = Abbreviation	Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly ided as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.
Mark 1:2 Isaiah the prophet vs. "the prophets"	Sinaiticus Vaticanus Regius Bezae	Washingtonianus Alexandrinus Rossanensis Beratinus 064 Basilensis	Copyists wanted to make a general description (in the prophets) specific (Isaiah).	Yes. Everyone agrees that the related quote is not only from Isaiah but is a combination of quotes (with editing) from multiple Jewish Bible authors. Hence, unlike supposed claims of history in the Christian Bible with no clear documented history to compare to, Christianity considered the Jewish Bible gospel and therefore a contradiction with it in the Christian Bible is a clear error. From a Christian standpoint.
Mark 1:10 and the Spirit as a dove descending into him: vs. upon	Vaticanus Bezae	Sinaiticus Regius Washingtonianus Alexandrinus Rossanensis Beratinus 064 Basilensis	The Greek word for "into" can also mean "unto" and the difference between "unto" and "upon" is insignificant.	Yes. "Into" is direct evidence for Separationist theology and is the best fit for GMark's preceding implication that there was nothing previously reMarkable about Jesus. Strangely Ehrman states on p. 174 of tOCoS that the consensus is so strong that it is not even mentioned in the Critical Apparatus. But the reason it is not mentioned is because the Critical Apparatus considers it (into/unto/upon) insignificant difference in meaning.
Mark 1:41 angry vs. compassionate	Bezae	Sinaiticus Vaticanus Regius Washingtonianus Alexandrinus Rossanensis Beratinus 064 Basilensis	Mistaken similar word in Version (Latin, Aramaic, Syriac) retro translated to Greek	Yes. Based on Christian theology clear expectation that if Jesus had emotion here it would be compassion. "Angry" would be the opposite of expectation (for subsequent Christianity, not "Mark" (author).
Mark 16:9-20 omission vs. inclusion	Sinaiticus Vaticanus Regius	Washingtoniansus Alexandrinus Bezae Rossanensis Beratinus 064 Basilensis	Original ending lost	Yes. Whether or not the likely original Gospel narrative contained the primary historical assertion of orthodox Christianity, known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. Note - Regius has the LE but has notes giving evidence that the LE is not original. Thus the 3 best witnesses testify against the LE. Washingtoniansus, the 4th best witness, has an expanded LE, and variation is a sign of addition. Thus the majority of quality witness for LE was written about twice as long after original GMark than the quality witness against LE.

Note from the above that Bezae looks like the most reliable manuscript for the most difficult readings (Bezae also shows evidence that
16:15-20 is addition). The ambiguous variant has the 4th century support in Greek and versions and is therefore generally favored as likely original. For me the Internal evidence also supports as 1:9 looks just as ambiguous to me.

The verse itself is dominated by typical Markan irony:

• 1) Joseph is looking for The Kingdom of God and is literally handed it.
  
  2) Joseph does not recognize The Kingdom of God even though he was looking for it just like JtB does not recognize Jesus even though
  he announced him. (Remember KK the Markan theme of things not being where you thought they should be like Salome/Jesus (and KK thought into this and wept(joyfully))).
  
  3) "τολμήσας" (dared) is the Textual Marker that links the Scribe being "close" to The Kingdom of God with Joseph being so very close to The Kingdom of God.

Joseph of Errancwikia

The New Porphyry

Statistics: Posted by JoeWallack — Tue Jan 21, 2025 5:46 pm

---