, [], May 23, 2006 Peter M. Head, Mark 15.28: Is rehabilitation possible?
Missing
verses are always interesting, and Mark has its fair share (7.16; 9.44,
46; 11.26; 15.28; 16.9-20). These are passages that were printed, with
verse numbers assigned, in Stephanus 1551 but are no longer generally
regarded as part of the original text of Mark and not printed as such
in recent critical editions. But what about Mark 15.28? Is rehabilitation possible? Or is this verse destined for life in the margins? Evidence
in support of this reading includes Eusebius (certainly was included in
Eusebius' canon lists noting the parallel in Luke 27.7-this could
reflect an earlier tradition). Other early evidence is in the Old
Latin. So it was clearly in existence well before the fourth century
(the date of our earliest manuscripts which lack the verse). It is also
obviously no simple harmonisation to Luke 22.37 (since the introductory
formula is quite different). It is clearly congruent with Markan style
and forms a striking inclusio with the initial citation of Isaiah in
Mark 1.2-3. So against it is only a good selection of the best
early manuscripts of Mark, the earliest witnesses in Syriac and Coptic,
and the small transcriptional matter that its inclusion is far more
easily explained than its omission.
