Blass— On the Greek Text of St. Mark's Gospel. 331 



in mind that he is not a competent judge of every possible question, 

 and that he has, like the ancient Eoman judge, three different 

 votes: one for absolving, one for condemning, and the third for 

 pronouncing N{on) L{iquet). Not even as an editor ought he to 

 be compelled to give but one reading for each passage. "Well, what 

 are the tests by which he may examine a critical question ? In the 

 first place, of course, he may test the case by the authority of witnesses : 

 that is to say, of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, patristic quota- 

 tions. But if he is content with this one test, giving his assent to 

 some class of MSS. which he has chosen as his best guides, he devolves 

 his own responsibility on others, which is, indeed, a most simple way 

 of getting rid of perplexity and difficulties, but by no means the 

 safest way to arrive at the truth of things. As a critic, he ought 

 rather to decide as many cases as he can by argument and sound 

 reasoning. Let me put aside for the moment the special difficulty in 

 Mark, that there may be more than one good reading for every passage. 

 In ordinary cases there is but one good reading, and all others except 

 this must be put to the account, not of the author, but of the scribes. 

 How, then, may we arrive at the just partition between the author 

 and the scribes? Well, I say, all blunders, and solecisms, and 

 awkward expressions, and contradictory statements, and so on, are 

 likely to be due to the scribes, and we are guilty of gross injustice 

 towards the author, if we decide otherwise. The authors of our 

 Gospels, and Mark not less than Luke or John, are not to be supposed 

 to have been either ignorant of common Greek, or thoughtless or 

 regardless as to what they wrote. I cannot credit Mark with having 

 written TO. SaifjLuvLa-Kpd^ovTe?, a neuter substantive with the par- 

 ticiple in the masculine. There are in the MSS. more instances than 

 one of this solecism, and our editors, while they justly disregard the 

 evidence of D, and other MSS. like D, when left alone, feel bound in 

 conscience to ascribe the blunder to Mark himself whenever the 

 authority of B joins with D. 



I cannot speak here on so many single cases as I should desire, 

 but must be content with a few samples. There is in ch. viii. 22 ff. 

 the well-known narrative of a blind man whom our Lord healed, 

 a narrative given by Mark alone. Jesus comes to Bethsaida, and 

 they bring a blind man unto him, evidently a man of that town or 

 village, although this is not expressly stated. Christ leads him out 

 of the town, and heals him, and then sends him away to his house, 

 saying (I am quoting after the Authorized Version) : " Neither go into 

 the town, nor tell it to any in the town." The man, as I said, is to be 



