https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wky5LIArS2c
JW:
5:22
And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and seeing him, he falleth at his feet, (ASV)
External Manuscript:
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php
ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος] p45 א A B C L N Δ Π Σ Φ Byz itaur itb itc itf itl itq vg syrc syrs syrp syrh syrpal copsa copbo copfay arm geo ς WH
ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος] (see Luke 8:41) W Θ 565 700
omit] D ita itd ite itff2 iti itr1
Ἰάϊρος] WH
Ἰάειρος] Byz ς
JW:
The External evidence is similar to
1:41 for "angry". Bezae, as weighty as any Manuscript for Difficult Readings, and early Latin witness omit. The Western readings may have been insulated from the Eastern Lucian Recension. The other External similarity is that GMatthew also lacks "Jairus". In addition, here we have variation in the phrase.
The Difficult Reading Principle clearly supports omission as there is no good reason why "Jairus" would be exorcised.
The Internal evidence looks like, as the Brits say, The Cruncher, as "Mark's" (author) style clearly in general is to avoid naming positive characters and specifically avoids naming the recipient of a healing. I will also preempt KK and say that for an author that loves repetition repetition, "Mark" never uses this phrase to identify a character. "Luke" on the other hand loves the phrase (see their respective identification of "Levi").
On the other hand, the External evidence for "Jairus" here includes p45, a very brave and influential witness, and "Jairus" does sound deLightfully contrived to pair with "Jerasa" in the preceding story. My guess is that "Jairus" is not original here. It was created by "Luke" (author) (who unlike "Mark" did want positive named witnesses).
Joseph
The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The London Conference - 1939