Markus 4:7

4:7 Other seed fell among the thorns, ¹  and they grew up and choked it, ²  and it did not produce grain.

Markus 5:43

5:43 He strictly ordered that no one should know about this, ³  and told them to give her something to eat.

Markus 8:28

8:28 They said, ⁴  “John the Baptist, others say Elijah, ⁵  and still others, one of the prophets.”

Markus 15:12

15:12 So Pilate spoke to them again, ⁶  “Then what do you want me to do ⁷  with the one you call king of the Jews?”

[4:7]  ¹ sn Palestinian weeds like these thorns could grow up to six feet in height and have a major root system.

[4:7]  ² sn That is, crowded out the good plants.

[5:43]  ³ sn That no one should know about this. See the note on the phrase who he was in 3:12.

[8:28]  ⁴ tn Grk “And they said to him, saying.” The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[8:28]  ⁵ sn The appearance of Elijah would mean that the end time had come. According to 2 Kgs 2:11, Elijah was still alive. In Mal 4:5 it is said that Elijah would be the precursor of Messiah.

[15:12]  ⁶ tn Grk “answering, Pilate spoke to them again.” The participle ἀποκριθείς (apokriqeis) is redundant and has not been translated.

[15:12]  ⁷ tc Instead of “what do you want me to do” several witnesses, including the most important ones (א B C W Δ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 892 2427 pc), lack θέλετε (qelete, “you want”), turning the question into the more abrupt “what should I do?” Although the witnesses for the longer reading are not as significant (A D Θ 0250 Ï latt sy), the reading without θέλετε conforms to Matt 27:22 and thus is suspected of being a scribal emendation. The known scribal tendency to assimilate one synoptic passage to another parallel, coupled with the lack of such assimilation in mss that are otherwise known to do this most frequently (the Western and Byzantine texts), suggests that θέλετε is authentic. Further, Mark’s known style of being generally more verbose and redundant than Matthew’s argues that θέλετε is authentic here. That this is the longer reading, however, and that a good variety of witnesses omit the word, gives one pause. Perhaps the wording without θέλετε would have been perceived as having greater homiletical value, motivating scribes to move in this direction. A decision is difficult, but on the whole internal evidence leads toward regarding θέλετε as authentic.