Here’s a first draft excerpt from the Mark Handbook. It’s an intro statement re. 10:19.
10:19 τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας· Μὴ φονεύσῃς, Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, Μὴ κλέψῃς, Μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, Μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα.
There are several perplexities in this verse, most of which go beyond the scope of a grammatical handbook (see the commentaries for additional discussion). Mark records Jesus’ citation of six commands. These come mostly from the second table of the Decalogue, though not in the OT order and with one command substituted.
Exod 20:12–17 reads as follows (Deut 5:16–21 is the same):
MT (BHS), as reflected in ESV, “Honor your father and your mother…. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness…. You shall not covet.”
LXX, τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα…, 13οὐ μοιχεύσεις. 14οὐ κλέψεις. 15οὐ φονεύσεις. 16οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις…. 17οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις….
Mark does not match the order of either MT or LXX, nor is his order the same as Matthew or Luke. In English, the key terms are as follows:
OT/MT: honor, murder, adultery, steal, false witness, covet
LXX: honor, adultery, steal, murder, false witness, covet
Mark: murder, adultery, steal, false witness, defraud, honor
Matt: murder, adultery, steal, false witness, honor
Luke: adultery, murder, steal, false witness, honor
These data verify that “lists of the Ten Commandments in early Christian literature often reveal selectivity, additions, or both” (Edwards, Mark, 310 n.31, citing examples from Did. 2 and Barn. 19, both of which have a greatly extended list of commands with Decalogue commands interspersed).
An additional variation is found in the grammatical form of the commands. Mark formats them all as aorist subjunctives with μή (as does Luke), but LXX and Matthew have future indicatives with οὐ. There is no difference in meaning; both constructions constitute prohibitions.
I’ve sometimes wondered whether we could be sure about whether we have future indicatives or aorist subjunctives originally here. Codex Bezae has them mixed.
True, D has the future form in two of the six verbs (ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς and ἀποστερήσῃς have -εις in D), albeit with μή as the negative. The use of μή plus D’s overall reliability in such things makes me hesitant, however. I’d sooner suspect that the subjunctive was intended, but with an εις – ῃς interchange. It’s interesting that Mark and Luke otherwise agree in the subjunctive, and that Matthew and LXX agree in the future form.
The conclusion regarding “selectivity, additions, or both” may be anachronistic, since the NT writers did not have a copy of a searchable OT on their desk as they wrote, nor could they backspace if they recognized they had omitted something. Moreover, they probably did not learn the OT in class, but rather from the Temple or Synagogue, where the actual text was read but once, yet it was repeated numerous times in discussions, expositions, hymns, etc. A safer conclusion would be that the variations attest to a much less rigid dependence on the letter of the text than is common among modern textual critics, provided the prayerful significance of the Word was doctrinally preserved.
It is not anachronistic since the statement does not assume computer capabilities. There was a written text available (as often the LXX as Heb.–perhaps more often) despite the fact that, yes, it was cited at times from memory.
I doubt that “safer” is an appropriate category in this context.
Just as an example, please see http://www.judaic.org/bible/yitro3.pdf:
“…the [Hebrew] Sages had taken for granted that variants are invariably purposeful and were intended to transmit an additional dimension of meaning to what was explicitly stated.
…
After all, prophecy was not transmitted through dictation but through concepts that the prophet was responsible to channel into writing.”