"spoken of by Daniel the prophet"

Metzger doesn't include the variant in his Textual Commentary.

A Σ Φ and many later manuscripts add τo pηθEν uπo Δανιηλ τοu προφήτου, “which was spoken by the prophet Daniel.”
א B D L W and other authorities lack these words.
[C. A. Evans, (2002). Vol. 34B: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 8:27-16:20]

The variant is scattered among the different regional witnesses.
The earliest fourth century witnesses do not have the portion.
The earliest manuscripts showing it are the Vulgate and Italian (k) versions.

There is no biblical manuscript evidence of the verse before 300 A.D. however Hippolytus an early bishop of Rome (c. a.d. 170––martyred 236) quoted a portion of the verse in his writings.

“And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved."
Hippolytus, Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

The TR version is remarkably similar to Matthew 24:15-16

So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Matthew 24:15-16 ESV

Rob

 

1. The MSS data favor the reading without το ρηθεν υπο δανιηλ του προφητου --"what was spoken by the Daniel the prophet."

2. I believe this is a case of scribal harmonization with Matthew.

 

In his digest A Closer Look!, Jack Moorman lists the following evidence in support of the TR reading: A E K H K M S U V X Y Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigama, Phi, Omega
Cursives: Majority (hf) fam 1, 13
Old Latin: aur c k l n**
Syr: pesh harc
Eth Arm
Also extant in 047, 055, 083, 0104, 0116, 0211, 0233?

Evidence against the reading: Aleph B D L W Psi
pc (legg cites 3 cursives)
a ff2 g1,2 i n* q r2 Vulg
sin Cop: sa bo

 

The reading in Mk 13:14, "which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet," is strongly defended by Maurice Robinson ("Two Passages in Mark: A Critical Test for the Byzantine-Priority Hypothesis," Faith & Mission 13:2 [Spring 1996]: 66-111).

I hesitate to discuss it here at all for fear of detracting attention from the well-researched article. Nevertheless, here are the basic points:

(1) The Byzantine Consensus (Byz) is old. The Old Latin MS k, the text of which Metzger agrees is firmly rooted in the 2nd century, agrees with Byz.

(2) Byz is not a true harmonization. Byz says "by" in Mk 13:14 while Mt 24:15 says "through." A few MSS harmonized Matthew's "through" to Mark's "by," and vice versa, but the Byz remained in disharmony here. This remains unexplained from an anti-Byz perspective.

(3) Within texttypes, harmonization is generally contained in a minority of its constituents. Many examples from the same pericope among all texttypes are given.

(4) More Alexandrian harmonizations exist in the Matthew/Mark pericope under discussion than Byz. Four cases of the UBS text accepting harmonized Alexandrian readings instead of the non-harmonized Byz readings are given. If the harmonized Alexandrian readings are genuine, no explanation exists for how Byz came to introduce the non-harmonized readings according to current Byz stereotypes. Thus Byz is mischaracterized in regard to tendency to harmonize.

(5) A great deal of the Synoptic Gospels are in harmony with no variation. Thus when variation and disharmony occur, rules based on scribal habits must be determined and practiced, and disharmony should not automatically be ruled out.

(6) The perception that either Mark or Jesus ascribed to Daniel what is not in Daniel, i.e., the words "where he ought not," caused some scribes considerable consternation and motivated them to eliminate the possibility of attributing error or inaccuracy to Jesus or Mark. Examples are given, such as Old Latin MS k, which deletes only "Daniel" to mitigate the problem, and others which assimilate Mark's/Jesus' supposed "error" to Matthew's "correct" citation, i.e., "in the holy place."

(7) While some scribes simplified or removed problems, Byz repeatedly does not do so. Examples are given, such as Mt 27:9 and the "Jeremiah" problem.

(8) Mark's editing arrangement contributed to his use of the less precise citation of Daniel.

I am only touching on the main points here. My advice is to read the article for yourself. I fear I have let you down by giving you such a rudimentary summary of the argument.

 

Just to graphically show what we are working with.

The phrase ‘the abomination of desolation’ is colored red.
The phrase ‘which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet’ is colored green.

NA27 Mark 13:14
Ὅταν δὲἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ______________ _________________, ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ, ὁἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, τότε οἱἐν τῇἸουδαίᾳ φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰὄρη,

BYZ Mark 13:14
Ὅταν δὲἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, ἑστὼς ὅπου οὐ δεῖ - ὁἀναγινώσκων νοείτω - τότε οἱἐν τῇἸουδαίᾳ φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰὄρη·

Parallel:
NA27 Matthew 24:15
Ὅταν οὖν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳἁγίῳ, ὁἀναγινώσκων νοείτω,

Daniel 12:11 Codex Sinaiticus (Old Greek)
ἀφ̓ οὗἂν ἀποσταθῇἡ θυσία διὰ παντὸς καὶἑτοιμασθῇ δοθῆναι τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἐνενήκοντα.

Rob

 

So which reading should we accept?

 

...τo pηθEν uπo Διακόνους...

Whether it was there or not is a ‘best guess’ conclusion.

When I study, I examine both texts and make my own decisions.
I think that is a responsible response to the state of the art of textual criticism.

In this case, the phrase in question really doesn’t change anything.
The addition (my opinion), merely adds additional information that can be confirmed as truthful.

Rob

 

The Byzantine reading here, upon a closer investigation, is more difficult. That it is more difficult is demonstrated by the readings of those scribes who tried to alter it in various ways, not just by deleting it entirely, although such was one such method of alteration. The Byzantine Consensus consistently presents the original reading without question, such as in Mt 27:49, and here is no different. When internal evidence is more evenly divided or even slightly tilted against it, and here is not one of those cases, but even if it were, when internal evidence is closely divided either way, it's best to go with the Byzantine Consensus, which consistently presents the original reading in those places where where internal evidence is not closely divided, but strongly one-sided in favor of one or the other reading.