Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7575Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Jerome Witness

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Wasserman
    Nov 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Joseph,

      I suggest you read my argument again, and very carefully.

      – The Latin witnesses to Irenaeus (in two other passages in Haer) carry great weight because it is plain from Irenaeus' argumentation at those places that he refers to the long reading! These are fully cited in my footnotes 26 and 27 from the edition edited by Norbert Brox; Herder, 1995.

      – There are, at Haer 3.11.8, several Greek witnesses, but they are various witnesses to the text of Anastasius who in turn refers to Irenaeus; hence this is an indirect tradition. According to the best available edition, Anastasius attests to a reading without Jesus Christ Son of God. At this point he attests to an argument in Irenaeus which is focused on how the Gospel begins (again, an abbreviation is perfectly natural).

      – Note especially the fact that several Greek fathers, when they discuss and compare Gospel openings, abbreviate Mark 1. Consider Epiphanius of Salamis who skips from Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου  right to v. 2. When did this practice begin in the context of Gospel incipit comparisons? When did this tradition start. I think you can read between the lines of my article that I think Irenaeus began... And Occam's razor tells me that he knew one reading according to positive evidence (the long reading attested in Latin, and plainly original reflected in his argumentation), whereas there is *no evidence* that he knew the short reading.



      You wrote:

      Irenaeus as witness to the Long does not coordinate well with the other evidence here for early Greek Patristic.

      I do not understand what you mean.

      31 okt 2012 kl. 16.42 skrev joewallack:


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
      > Dear Joseph,
      > In the previous footnote (23) I indicate the reference to Haer. 3.11.8, which is the edition SC 211, p. 166, where you will find the cited Greek text (without "Jesus Christ") and an accompanying textual apparatus. This apparatus represents the most recent and full critical apparatus of the Latin text and "Greek fragments" (= from the indirect tradition). Unfortunately, there is, apart from a few fragments, no direct extant Greek evidence of Irenaeus at all (which is also apparent from Sanday's older edition of Haeresis). Instead the Greek evidence in this particular case, in relation to Mark 1:1, is indirectly inferred from the Greek text of Anastasius Sinaita, Questio 144, who cites Irenaeus (to which Sanday refers). So first there is a matter of text-critical reconstruction of Anastasius. Rosseau and Doutreleau explain, "Le texte d'Anastase ici donné a été établi, avec son apparat critique, dans l'Introduction, p. 114 [this is in SC 210]. So the Greek text which is referred to in this edition as "Fr. gr. 11" has Î`Ï™ÏΩη Ï≥οÏ∑ εÏ∑αΓΓελΒοÏ∑ (and yes, it is apparently based on Greek evidence). In sum: there is no direct "extant" Greek evidence. Even Sanday refers to MSS of Anastasius' work, whereas the modern SC edition includes an extensive reconstruction even of that work. Moreover, Irenaeus argument suggests that he knows the long reading.
      > However, since Rosseau and Doutreleau publication of their edition (SC 210-211) in 1974, a new edition of Anastasius has appeared:
      > Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et Responsiones (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 59, Brepols/Leuven University Press, Turnhout/Leuven 2006.
      > I did not check this edition for Questio 144, which I ought to have done (but I trusted Rosseau and Doutreleau which had basically done the job). If anyone on this list would doublecheck this source and send me a scan of the relevant page(s) I would be most grateful.
      > In any case, regardless of the result the Greek tradition here is indirect.
      > Best,
      > Tommy

      Tommy, thank you for the inside information. Those who favor the Short think there is pressure on Irenaeus here as witness to the Long for the following reasons:

      1) Everyone agrees that in general Latin Irenaeus has been moved to orthodox. The question, in the words of my famous cousin Eli, is "How much?".

      2) Irenaeus as witness to the Long does not coordinate well with the other evidence here for early Greek Patristic.

      Hence, rightly or wrongly, the desire for higher standards of evidence for Irenaeus. For footnote 23 you conclude:

      "The Greek witnesses to Irenaeus' citation agree with the Latin witnesses." (perhaps a greater mystery than the original of 3.11.8 is how to get Greek fonts to work here)

      You say "Greek witnesses" but it's only Anastasius, right? Regarding "Latin witnesses" the complete manuscript omits "Jesus Christ"? Any other Latin witness here?

      Due to the desired higher standards mentioned above, supporters of Short would be curious as to:

      1) Exactly what Anastasius wrote.

      2) Variation/uncertainty as to what Anastasius wrote.

      All that being said/pondered, even if Irenaeus omitted "Jesus Christ" it's still evidence for Short since it also omits "the son of God", a key slogan of these orthodox fathers. The problems with the abbreviation theory are the cumulative early Greek witness combined with later latin that suddenly don't seem to like to abbreviate very much, otherwise there would be lots of Latin witness for the Short as well.


    • Show all 23 messages in this topic