Pre-release preview of BLC's MP4 Companion

Here at Fresno Pacific University, I have been working together with a team of student workers at developing an MP4 Companion to BLC's Living Biblical Hebrew - Introduction Part 1. It is almost finished, and we hope to have it available soon. In the meantime, I thought it would be nice to give you a sneak preview of what it will look like.

In the video, you will see the beta version for the quiz after lesson #2. In the first two lessons (end of week one in a three-unit semester course), students will have been introduced to basic vocabulary through the medium of pictures, all in Biblical Hebrew, without ever relying on any English. In the quiz, as they hear a word or sentence, they need to identify to which of the three pictures it relates. After a brief pause, the correct drawing is revealed.

An advantage of this method is that it bypasses the need for English glosses, and helps the student internalize the language as Hebrew, not as a translation of an English term. Students like it, because it is way more fun than going through vocab lists or flash cards, and as a result, much easier to assimilate and retain. It's a win-win!

Additionally, students are already becoming intrinsically familiar with basic sentence structure while they are learning vocabulary. And after a few lessons, tenses are introduced so that students can begin "feeling" the patterns that mark tenses.

Keep checking the Biblical Language Center's website for when this MP4 Companion will be available. In the meantime, one can always purchase the book with the audio CD (mp3) and get started already. One can start learning Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek in this way.

The Hebrew Language Academy on lamed-yud pi``el: גִלִּיתִי and גִלֵּיתִי

Yesterday, 27 Jan 2010, the Hebrew Language Academy confirmed that alternative 1st and 2nd person suffix tense (‘past’) forms of pi``el lamed-yud roots will be officially acceptable in modern Hebrew. גִלֵּיתִי will be acceptable, and apparently even גִלֵּיתָ. The reason for the confirmation and acceptance is that forms with both [i] and [e] occur in the Hebrew Bible, גִלִּיתִי and גִלֵּיתִי. This is also a good illustration for language learners that there are places in a language where ‘close’ is good enough, where sounds that in other contexts might cause problems can be acceptable.

The sounds in question revolve around [i] and [e], written Hiriq and tsere in the Hebrew writing system. This involves the vowel of the second syllable in pi``el ‘suffix tenses’ in the first and second persons, where the ‘third root letter’ was a “yod”. Current Israeli Hebrew as a majority dialect prefers the [i] sound גִלִּיתִי . According to the Hebrew Language Academy, both [i] and [e] forms will be officially acceptable in the pi``el pattern.

This issue is of interest to those studying Biblical Hebrew and for those who would teach Biblical Hebrew. What form should be used in teaching materials?

A majority dialect is typically recommend in language learning. A student needs to start somewhere, even if they will end up responding to more than one form of a word.

Below are two lists of some common verbs of the pattern described by the Hebrew Language Academy. The left Hebrew column would be the ‘newly accepted’ forms, while the right Hebrew column has the current majority. Both columns here are limited to occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, so as to be directly applicable to discussions of biblical Hebrew. Underneath each line are the numbers of occurrences in the Bible of the [e] form and then the [i] form.

Lamed-yud pi``el (1^st and 2^nd person suffix tenses)

Eng. gloss [e] [i]

‘I discovered’ גִלֵּיתִי and גִלִּיתִי

4 and 2 (occurrences in HB)

‘you discovered’ גִלֵּית and גִלִּית

0 2

‘I compared’ דִמֵּיתִי and דִמִּיתִי

0 2

‘you compared’ דִמֵּיתָ and דִמִּיתָ

0 1

‘we compared’ דִמֵּינוּ and דִמִּינוּ

0 1

‘I winnowed’ זֵרֵיתִי and זֵרִיתִי

0 6

‘you winnowed’ זֵרֵיתָ and זֵרִיתָ

0 1

‘I finished’ כִלֵּיתִי and כִלִּיתִי

4 1

‘you finished’ כִלֵּיתָ and כִלִּיתָ

0 1

‘I covered’ כִסֵּיתִי and כִסִּיתִי

2 4

‘you covered’ כִסֵּיתִי and כִסִּיתָ

0 2

‘we covered’ כִסֵּינוּ and כִסִּינוּ

0 1

‘I cleansed’ נִקֵּיתִי and נִקִּיתִי

3 0

‘you cleansed’ נִקֵּיתָ and נִקִּיתָ

0 1

‘I commanded’ צִוֵּיתִי and צִוִּיתִי

5 30

‘you commanded’ צִוֵּיתָ and צִוִּיתָ

0 13

‘I waited in hope’ קִוֵּיתִי and קִוִּיתִי

2 6

‘you cleansed’ קִוֵּינוּ and קִוִּינוּ

0 3

‘I compared’ שִוֵּיתִי and שִוִּיתִי

0 6

‘I cleansed’ זִכֵּיתִי and זִכִּיתִי

0 2

‘I waited’ חִכֵּיתִי and חִכִּיתִי

0 1

‘we waited’ חִכֵּינוּ and חִכִּינוּ

0 1

‘I satisfied’ רִוֵּיתִי and רִוִּיתִי

1 0

While the above list is not complete for all pi``el lamed-yud verbs, it does include those with 3 or more examples of a form, plus some random examples. [rivveti] 'I satisfied' was included in order to show how accidental statistics can produce a verb with a supposedly 'opposite' pattern.

It is immediately apparent that the forms with [i] are the majority.

In fact, in the second person singular ‘you,s.’ and first person plural ‘we’ the forms are always with [i]. This statement is true for any pi``el pattern lamed-yud root in the Hebrew Bible, not just those listed here.

Also, when these verbs have object suffixes they always have the [i] vowel.

For example:

צִוִּיתִיךָ ‘I commanded you.’ This may relate to preserving an earlier form of the verb.

So what should we do and what do we find?

In books like Living Biblical Hebrew, volumes 1 and 2 the patterns that students use are based on צִוִּיתִי not צִוֵּיתִי.

Then when students encounter an alternative form when reading a text they can be informed that [e] was an alternative vocalization.

Galilee Greek Immersion April 2010

Greek inscription at Hippos

One of many inscriptions in Sephoris synagogue. Notice spelling of και.

Overlooking 'parable bay', a nice place to preach from a boat

Imagine breakfast to bed overlooking the Lake of Genneseret, all in Koine Greek. Reading the gospels, discussing them in Koine Greek, some fluency pedagogy, and visits to sites around the lake. 31 March to 11 April 2010. Keep those dates open and watch the Biblical Language Center website for details.

Art and a message

How does this picture make one feel
about listening to the gospel and letters of John in Greek?

The Irony of Samaria: Σαμαρεια / Σαμαρειτης in the Greek NT

The following is a little long for a note, but hopefully fun.
There are several ironies in the spelling of Σαμαρεια/Σαμαρια in our Greek texts.

Readers of United Bible Societies Greek text and the Nestle Aland text will be familiar with the following spellings:

Σαμάρεια (the place), and
Σαμαρίτης (a person of the place, male)
Σαμαρῖτις (a person of the place, female)

The spelling of the two forms is inconsistent, though the root will sound identical when read with a first century pronunciation.
[[ ει is correctly pronounced like the ι [i] vowel sound rather than the [e] sound (close to ey in 'they') that is often heard in academic circles.]]
But this inconsistency is only the first in a series.

The world turns upside down when Westcott and Hort are brought in. Westcott-Hort have:

Σαμαρία (the place) and
Σαμαρείτης (the person, male)
Σαμαρεῖτις (the person, female)

Not only are both WH and UBS/NA internally inconsistent, but they are the opposite of each other. That is a rather unexpected result.

Do the manuscript traditions support either of these inversions or provide a solution? On the surface one would not expect that WH and UBS/NA would come to such doubly inverted results without some good manuscript support. These can be checked rather quickly and fairly comprehensively today because of the books of Swanson, who records manuscript deviances on points like these.

The Data from Swanson on –EI- versus –I- for Samaria.

Here are the data from Swanson on –EI- versus –I- for Samaria. Brief discussions will follow the data. The patterns are surprising.

Luke 17:11
Σαμαρεια Βc, p75, D, H, Y, K, M, N, S, U, Γ, Λ, Π, Ω, 33, 124, 157, 579, 700, 788, 1071, 1024, f1, f13,
Σαμαρια B*, א, A, E, F, G, L, W, Δ, Θ, Ψ, 2, 28, 69, 565

John 4:4
Σαμαρεια Β, p75, A, byz (FGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Λ, Π, Ψ, 28, 33, 124, 157, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαρια p66, א, C, D, E?, L, Wsup, Δ, Θ, 2, 565,

John 4:5
Σαμαρεια Β, p75mg, A, byz (FGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2, 28, 33, 69, 124, 157, 565, 579, 700, 788, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαρια p66, אc, C, D, E, L, W, Θ, 565,

John 4:7
Σαμαρεια Β, p75, A, C, byz (EGvizHSYΩ), Κ, Lc, M, N, U, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 28, 33, 69, 124, 157, 565, 700, 788, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαρια p66, א, D, F, L*, Wsup, Θ, 2, 579.

Acts 1:8
Σαμαρεια B, C, H2, Ψ, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495
Σαμαρια א, A, D, E, 049, 1175, 1646,

Acts 8:1
Σαμαρεια B, p74, A, C, H, P, Ψ, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1241, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495
Σαμαρια א, D, E, 049, 1175, 1243, 1646, 2147.

Acts 8:5
Σαμαρεια B, A, H, P, Ψ, 049c, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 618, 927, 945, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1646, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495
Σαμαρια אc, p74, C, D, E, 049*, 614, 1175.

Acts 8:9
Σαμαρεια B, A, H, Ψ, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1175, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495.
Σαμαρια א, p74, C, D, E, P, 049, 1646.

Acts 8:14
Σαμαρεια B, A, H, L, P, Ψ, 049c, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 618, 927, 945, 1175, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495.
Σαμαρια א, p74, C, D, E, 049*, 614, 1646.

Acts 9:31
Σαμαρεια B, p74, A, C, H, L, P, Ψ, 049, 056, 1, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1175, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1646, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2412, 2492c, 2495.
Σαμαρια א, E, 2147, 2344.

Acts 15:3
Σαμαρεια B, p45, p74, A, L, P, Ψ, 049, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1646, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2412, 2492, 2495.
Σαμαρια א, C, D, E, H, 1175.

The Results for Spelling the Place Name Samaria:

B is consistently -EI-, 10/11, corrected 11/11.
א is consistently -I-, 11/11.
p75 is consistently -EI-, 4/4
p45 is -EI-, 1/1
p66 is consistently -I-, 3/3
A is predominantly -EI-, 9/11 (Lk 17 and Ac 1.8 exceptional)
D is predominantly -I-, 9/10 (Lk 17 EI)
C is mixed, -EI- 4/10, -I- 6/10
E is predominantly -I-, 10/11 (Jn 4.7 -EI?-)
H is predominantly, -EI- 10/11 (A15 -I-)
W is consistently -I- 4/4.
Θ is consistently -I- 4/4.
Miniscules are predominantly -EI-,
though a few show a mixture
like 565 = -EI- 2/4 , -I- 2/4;
614 = -EI- 5/7 , -I- 2/7 ;
1175 = -EI-3/7 , -I- 4/7 .

The place name was spelled -ει- in the old Alexandrian (p75, B, A in Acts)
and in the Byzantine traditions.
Another Alexandrian spelling was -ι-, which is also the Western reading.

It appears that Westcott and Hort abandoned the spelling of B because it lined up with the Byzantine reading and because significant Alexandrian witnesses and the Western witness agreed. However, this looks different today, since p75 and p45 have joined B's spelling. WH should have paid more attention to Σαμαρεια in the six examples where the old Alexandrian manuscripts B and A agree in Acts.

This becomes more telling when the gentilic noun 'Samaritan' is investigated.

The Data for the Gentilic Noun 'Samaritan'
John 4:9, first (feminine gentilic):

Σαμαρειτις Β, p66c, p75, A, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2*, 28, 33, 157, 565, 700, 788, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαριτις p63, p66*, א, C, D, L, N, Wsup, Θ, 2c, 579.

John 4:9, second (feminine gentilic):
Σαμαρειτιδος Β, p75, A, C, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, L, M, U, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2*, 28, 33, 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαριτιδος p63, p66, א, D, N, Wsup, Δ, Θ, 2, 579.

The consistent -ι- witnesses are the same manuscripts that supported WH's choice of Σαμαρία: p66, א, D, W, Θ. One must wonder: if these were strong enough in the gospels to lead Westcott and Hort to Σαμαρια, then why not with the gentilic Σαμαριτις? Before we answer definitively we need to complete the picture and add one more set of data for the masculine gentilic 'Samaritan'.

Matt. 10:5
Σαμαρειτων Β, byz (EFSYΩ), Κ, L, M, U, Δ, Λ, Πc,Ψ, 157, 700, 788, 1071, 1346, f1, f13.
Σαμαριτων א, C, G, L, N, W, Θ, Π*, 2, 28, 33, 565, 579.
Σαμαριτανων D.

Luke 9:52
Σαμαρειτων Β, p45, p75, D, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Δ, Θ, Ψ, 28, 33, 69, 118, 124, 157, 565, 1071, 1346, 1424, f1.
Σαμαριτων א, A, C, Hc, L, W, Y, Γ, Λ, 2, 579.
Σαμαρητων H*.

Luke 10:33
Σαμαρειτης Β, p75, A, byz (EGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Γ, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 28, 33, 124, 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, f1, f13.
Σαμαριτης א, C, D, L, N, W, 2, 69, 579.
Σαμαρητης Θ.

Luke 17:16
Σαμαρειτης Β, A, byz (EGHSYΩ), Κ, Lc, M, U, Γ, Δ, Θ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 28, 157, 565, 700, 788, 1071, 1346, 1424, f1.
Σαμαριτης א, D, L*, N, W, Δ, Θ, 2, 579, f13.

John 4:9
Σαμαρειταις Β, p63, p75, אc, A, C, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, N, U, Θ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 1, 28, 69, 118, 124, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, 1582, f13.
Σαμαριταις p66, L, Wsup, Δ, 2, 33, 579.

John 4:39
Σαμαρειτων Β, p75, A, C, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2*, 28, 33, 69, 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, f1, f13.
Σαμαριτων p66, א, D, L, Wsup, Δ, Θ, 579.

John 4:40
Σαμαρειται Β, p75, A, C, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2, 28, 33, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1424, f1, f13.
Σαμαριται p66, א, A, D, L, Wsup.
Σαμαριτε 1071.

John 8:48
Σαμαρειτης Β, p75, C, D, byz (EFHSYΩ), Κ, L, M, U, Λ, Π, Ψ, 33, 69, 118, 124, 565, 700, 788, 1071, f1, f13.
Σαμαριτης p66, א, G, N, W, Δ, Θ, 2, 1582c.
Σαμαριτις 579.
Σαμαρειτις 28, 157, 1424.

Acts 8:25.
Σαμαρειτων Β, p74, A, C, D, H, L, P, 049c, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 1611, 1645, 1828, 1837, 1854, 2147, 2412, 2492, 2495.
Σαμαριτων א, Ε, 049*, 1245, 1646, 2344.
Σαμαρητων 1175.

Results and Conclusions

The spelling for Σαμαρειτης is a little more inconsistent than for the place name Σαμαρεια, but the same manuscripts are basically lining up with the same relationships.

B is consistently -EI- 9/9.
א is consistently -I- 8/8 (plus one correction of a lacuna with -EI-)
p45 is consistently -EI- 1/1
p75 is consistently -EI- 6/6
D is mixed -EI- 3/8, -I- 5/8. But still in the same direction of its 9/10 preference of Σαμαρια over Σαμαρεια.
W is consistently -I- 8/8.
A is predominantly -EI- 6/7 (Lk 9:52 -I-.) In Acts [Alexandrian] it is -EI- 1/1.
C is mixed -EI- 5/8, -I- 3/8. The three -I- are in Matt and Luke.
The Byzantine manuscripts are predominantly -EI-

How does one distill this?

There is no consistent evidence that would support either UBS/NA or WH ! Differentiating the vowel EI/I in the place name 'Samaria' from the gentilic name 'Samaritan', whichever flip-flop one chooses, appears to be an artificial introduction into the spelling tradition by both published critical texts. UBS/NA may be faulted for following the -I- traditions in the gentilic names Σαμαριτης and Σαμαριτις. The manuscripts that they were following for this tradition would have led them to choose the place name Σαμαρια as well. Likewise, Westcott and Hort should have stuck with their acknowledged preference of B and old Alexandrian witnesses. The papyri p75 and p45 have reinforced the spelling Σαμαρεια. But again, there is no consistent support for maintaining a distinction between Σαμαρια and Σαμαρειτης. The only old witness that moves a bit in that direction is D, Codex Bezae. But Bezae is hardly a reliable tradition, and it only scores 3/8 with Σαμαρειτης. One might also point to the mixed attestation of C, but it, too, is hardly a sterling example of a tight manuscript. It means that there are no manuscripts that consistently support either UBS/NA or Westcott-Hort.

But the manuscripts do support consistency. B, p75, A, and K are on one side (-ει-), and א, p66, and D (-ι-) on the other. Whatever the original authors may have written, the various ancient publishing houses seem to have passed on one tradition or another, though with occasional inconsistencies and some evidence of cross-contamination.

A final irony for this situation is the resulting spelling. The old Alexandrian and the Byzantine manuscripts share a bed here. Together, they both point to Σαμαρεια and Σαμαρειτης as the preferred forms for the Greek NT. The Byzantine text (Robinson-Pierpont) has this spelling right. Fortunately, a person can read both the WH and UBS/NA texts correctly when one is trained to hear the old language.

And of course, we (BLC, www.biblicalulpan.org) do believe in listening to the old language.

(for a textcritical blog discussion on "Why spelling matters" see
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-spelling-matters.html)
(for more information on Living Koine Greek pronunciation see
www.biblicalulpan.org
and http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf)

Randall Buth

When do corrections need to be made with language learners? When does Erasmian pronunciation cross the line and need to be corrected?

When do corrections need to be made with language learners? When does Erasmian pronunciation cross the line and need to be corrected?

Children need a stress-free environment for play and learning. Parents correct their children's speech, but not everything all at once and most of the time most any understandable utterance is accepted and praised. The child eventually cleans up the language, one piece at a time, but only when they are ready to do it. Pushing too much too early just creates stress. It will still take a natural amount of development time before the child can control all of the pieces.

Language teachers are like parents. They need to correct students, but what is helpful?

One rule of thumb is that corrections need to be made when communication breaks down. Here are two amusing examples. One of an English learner, the other of Greek.

A girl from our neighborhood in Israel once met my son in Los Angeles. She commented "I've just been to the bitch." My son thought she had just been through some disturbing experience. But she was smiling. After several rounds of questions it dawned on our son that the girl had just visited the beach. Israeli Hebrew does not have an open 'i' sound like in the English word 'pit'. This girl had learned that, but was over-correcting and putting the open-[i] sound into the word 'beach' by mistake. She probably knew that people smile at Israelis when they say the English word "sheet" for a common profanity. So our son corrected her "beach". She had just come from the beach. Yes, she was at a stage where she needed that correction. Communication had broken down.

Yesterday I landed on a Greek website where the doxology was being sung. I had heard it before. I don't know who was singing, but I was startled, something like my son in the situation above. Clearly and melodically someone was singing "be praising the female goddess here!" in Greek. They were waxing lyrical in Dorian dialect, often used for choruses. I had visions of Astarte, with prostitutes inviting one into a pagan temple, yet the song continued with a (mispronounced) Christian conclusion. Rather strange, to say the least. I recognized the tune and realized what had happened. The singer had substituted an 'a' sound [alpha] for an 'o' sound. "Erasmians" (especially from the USA) need to be careful when using a pronunciation system that does not fit the Koine Greek language. Yes, that definitely needs correcting. Communication is breaking down. Humorous errors like that have happened to me and most anyone who has learned a second language. But there are some things that teachers just can't let slide. ταν θεαν the female goddess has got to go. Maybe it wouldn't hurt if that Erasmian pronunciation joined her, but first things first.

For a Koine pronunciation that fit the times, see www.biblicalulpan.org

and http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf

Textual Criticism and Synoptics, the Case of ευθυς

On the importance of textual criticism in synoptic studies: the case of ευθυς.

I have always viewed ευθυς as a nice marker of Matthew's use of Mark. [For the record, I am confident that both were composed in Greek. What of the Hebrew tradition in Papias? I see the Hebrew Matthew of Papias as refering to a pre-synoptic narrative source דברי ישוע, coming from the Jerusalem church and later translated into Greek and used in Greek sources for our synoptic gospels.]

But then again, I have always been, and am currently, a textual Alexandrian, though with room for doubt. [I am sympathetic to the view that it is hard for an Alexandrian position to posit a massive Byzantine redaction in the 4th century, purging Alexandrianisms from the new Byzantine text. Things aren't normally so neat in history or the manuscript world.]

Back to ευθυς.

In the Westcott-Hort text and the Moulton-Geden concordance:

Matthew uses ευθεως 10 [11] times 4.20, 22, 8.3, 13.5, [14.22], 31, 20.34, 24.29, 25.15, 26.49, 27.48.

Matthew also uses ευθυς 7 times 3.16, 13.20, 21, 14.27, 21.2, 3, 26.74.

Mark never uses ευθεως.

Mark uses ευθυς 40 [41] times 1.10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 42, 43, 2.8, 12, 3.6, 4.5, 15, 16, 17, 29, [5.2], 29, 30, 42, 42, 6.25, 27, 45, 50, 54, 7.25, 8.10, 9.15, 20, 24, 10.52, 11.2, 3, 14.43, 45, 72, 15.1.

Obviously, ευθυς is a Marcanism.

More provacatively diagnostic, all seven of the ευθυς examples in Matthew are parallel to verses in Mark. Not only that, they are very tightly congruent in the rest of the Greek wording in their respective verses and they occur in both the narrative framework and in the words of Jesus. There is a literary connection. (Logically, either Matthew used Mark, Mark used Matthew, or both used a shared source.)

Since ευθυς is a Marcanism, the probable conclusion is that Matthew has borrowed seven examples of ευθυς from Mark, but himself prefers ευθεως. [NB: of the 11 ευθεως in Matthew, only 7 out of 11 Matthean ευθεως have an 'immediately' parallel in Mark. [[Mt 4.20, 4.22, 8.3, 13.5, 14.22, 20.34, 26.49]] If Mark were converting all 'immediately's in Matthew to ευθυς, it would be surprising that he only gets less than 2/3 of the ευθεως but 100% of the ευθυς.]

This becomes a clear trace-element. Just what forensics want on a CSI investigation. Since I started my scholarly days in the Moulton-Geden paper-hardcopy world, I have been able to carry around a datum like this as a 'quick' example of why it is clear that Matthew used Mark.

However, in the electronic age, I can now update the above comparison against NA27. In NA27 Matthew only has 5 ευθυς. Matthew 3.16, 13.20, 21, 14.27, 21.3. Two of the WH examples jump over to ευθεως, 21.2 [only א and L have ευθυς in Swanson], 26.74 [only B, L, θ have ευθυς in Swanson].

The result is the same, with 5 out of 5 borrowed from Mark instead of 7 out of 7. Ευθυς still appears to be a non-Mattheanism, perhaps even more so, since fewer of them occur. The new statistics would now say that 9 out of 13 ευθεως, 70%, in Matthew have an 'immediately' in Mark against 100% of Matthean ευθυς. Still suggestive that Mark is not copying Matthew.

So what's the point of all the above?

Let's look at the Byzantine text.

In 46 variation units of ευθεως/ευθυς in Mark (Alex. has unique examples at 1.23, 5.42b, 7.25, 14.72, Byz at 1.31, 5.36, 7.35 [NA bracketed]):

the Byzantine text has ευθεως 40 times and ευθυς 2 [1.12, and 1.28].

The Byzantine-Alexandrian text agree to have either ευθεως or ευθυς 39 [40] times.

Neither of the examples of ευθυς in Byz Mark have an ευθυς in Matthew! Byz Mark 1.12 is parallel to a Matthean τοτε, a distinctive Mattheanism that is not picked up in Mark anywhere. Byz Mark 1.28 is 'Marcan material' that has no equivalent in Matthew [Byz or Alex].

In the Byzantine text, Mark could have a source that has ευθυς since ευθυς is not a Marcan stylistic feature and Mark cannot borrow from Matthew's τοτε at Mark 1.12. Mark could be the copier of an unknown source. He would only have ευθυς where his source would have ευθυς, otherwise he continues with his personal ευθεως. The source, of course, could have many more ευθυς, three of which turn up in Byzantine Matthew [3.16 // ByzMark 1.9 ευθεως, 13.20//Byz Mark ευθεως, 13.21//Byz Mark ευθεως]. Byzantine Matthew, however, is not copying Mark but a shared source. Or else both Byzantine Matthew and Byzantine Mark infrequently and randomly add ευθυς. [Mt 3xx out of 18, Mk 2xx out of 42, never parallel.]

Or, in the Byzantine text one could argue that two ευθυς from an Alexandrian redaction/spelling of Mark have entered the Byzantine tradition at an early stage. This would leave unexplained the manner in which the ευθυς examples entered the Byzantine Matthean tradition on the assumption that the Byzantine text was original. There would not have been many Matthean ευθυς in an early Alexandrian redaction for penetrating Byz Matthew. Even though Byz Mark could be penetrated by Alex Mark in two places, it would be less likely that Byz Matthew would pick up three ευθυς from an Alex Matthew that only had 5 anyway. So Byz Matthew would become an infrequent and random user of ευθυς. One could say the same for Mark and have either Matthew or Mark ignore the others, as dicted by one's synoptic theory. Only one would need to be an 'ignorer' in order to explain the data and neither is a strong friend of ευθυς.

What is remarkable, is that regarding ευθυς/ευθεως in the Byzantine text the literary flow Mark to Matthew does not exist. Yet the Alexandrian text has a clear literary flow from Mark to Matthew on this point. Alexandrians can point to ευθυς as evidence that Matthew used Mark. But that datum is only as strong as the textual theory.