J. Duncan M. Derrett 122 Further we must go back to a passage about which all synoptics are agreed: in O kuvrio~ aujtou' (aujtw'n) creivan e[cei who is the kuvrio", does the J word govern aujtou', and in that case what is the meaning of creivan e[cei 3. 2. Palin v The Textus Receptus does not have the word pavlin, and that version is supported by a very substantial apparatus 4. The mss. vacillate between apostellei and apostelei; and aujto;n ajpostevllei rather than j v j ' apostellei aujtovn (versions) is regarded as correctly presenting the TR. j v The TR was followed universally until WH 5. The former is the reading of the Vulgata and a part of the Syriac tradition. It not only agrees with Matthew (surely not a mere coincidence? 6 ), but makes sense. Why should anyone disturb it? The meaning of Mk 11,3d would then be, «And he will at once send it (the colt) here.» «He» is the ad hoc custodian, according to v. 3a-b, who is pre- dicted to agree to release the animal into the disciples’ care (lit. «let them go»), and w|de then means the place where Jesus stands 7. Jesus is predicting (cf. 14,3) and we learn the outcome (kai; ajfh'kan aujtouv~ 11,6b), words only in Mark. If this was the original text of Mark, as argued by P.-L. Couchoud 8 and F. Field 9, there is nothing to complain about. About a gratuitous commoda- tum the law has much to say, but none of it implausible in context10. 3 Kilpatrick insisted, Pesch confirmed, and the NEB margin had Marcan usage identi- fied. So the Diglot (1961). But traditional translators, including REB, NJB, NIV, and even NRSV render «The Lord needs it» or the like. Even Schonfield («The Master needs him») and Cassirer («The master has need of it») make this mistake. A case of great minds agree- ing in error. Cf. R.G. Bratcher, «A note on Mark xi.3: oJ kuvrio~ aujtou' creivan e[cei, ExpT 64, 1952-3, 93. On creiva see also Moulton-Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, s.v. 4 More impressively at H. B. Swete, Mark (1902), 248 and Aland, Synopsis (1964), 366 and UBS3, 169 than at Huck-Greeven, Synopse (1981), 210 or NA26 (1979). On palin in Mark see E.J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge, 1978) v 96-99: a link. 5 Scholz and Griesbach agree using the TR as printed by Stephanus (3rd edn.) and the Elzevir text of 1633. Benj. Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott (1864) retained the TR reading up to his last edition (1942). 6 Could one seriously claim that the vast apparatus was influenced by Matthew (Swete)? 7 That this was the natural impression from both Matthew and Mark was the opin- ion of the celebrated linguist, Ludovicus de Dieu (b. 1590), In quatuor Evangelia (Leiden, 1623, 1631, 1646). See nn. 8 and 9 below. 8 Couchoud, «Notes de critique verbale sur St Marc et St Mattieu», JTS 34, 1953, 113-138 at pp. 125-126. V. Taylor, Mark, 454. 9 Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Cambridge 1899), 34-35, with whom I entirely agree. 10 On the plausibility of the tale see A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Bampton Lectures 1980; London, 1982), 120-124 (Jesus was eccentric in not entering Jerusalem on foot - but did he not dismount?). For purposes of comparison Justinian, Inst. III.14.2 is not without interest. The interpolator of pavlin may have had this in mind.