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

7582Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Jerome Witness

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Wasserman
    Nov 5, 2012
      Joseph,

      I am not sure that I understand exactly what you mean when you conclude:

      "If Irenaeus did omit 'Jesus Christ' and 'son of God' I have faith that it is better evidence that 'Jesus Christ' was not there than it is that 'son of God' was."

      "Jesus Christ" was definitely in Irenaeus' text of the NT (I have never doubted that); the specific omission in his citation in Haer. 3.11.8 only demonstrates that he abbreviated his text at this point (and the discussion there was about Gospel incipits). 

      I hope we can now agree that:

      (a) there is positive evidence that Irenaeus knew the long reading – and the Latin evidence to Irenaeus' text carries great weight since in the context he makes a point that Jesus is the Son of God:

      Irenaeus, Haer. 3.10.5: Quapropter et Marcus, interpres et sectator Petri, initium evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic: “Initium evangelii Iesu Christi filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in Prophetis . . . rectas facite semilas ante Deum nostrum”, manifeste intium evangelii esse dicens sanctorum prophetarum voces, et eum quem ipsi dominum et Deum confessi sunt hunc patrem domini nostri Iesu Christi praemonstrans . . . Latin text edited by Norbert Brox, Irenäus von Lyon: Adversus Haereses III/Gegen die Häresien III (Fontes Christiani 8/3; Freiburg im Breisgau : Herder, 1995), 93–94 (in this edition Haer. 3.10.6).


      Haer. 3.16.3: . . . filius Dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium Dei. Propter hoc et Marcus ait: “Initium evangelii Iesu Christi filii Dei quemadmodum scriptum est in prophetis”, unum et eundem sciens filium Dei Jesum Christum . . . (ibid., 190).  


      (I should add that in the context of 3.10.5, Irenaeus cites Rom 1:1-4 and Gal 4:4-5.)


      (b) there is no evidence that Irenaeus knew the short reading.


      Do you still doubt that Irenaeus did not know the long reading?


      With regards,


      Tommy Wasserman


      3 nov 2012 kl. 00.32 skrev joewallack:

       


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Joseph,
      >
      > I suggest you read my argument again, and very carefully.


      JW:
      Actually I've read your argument very very carefully but that's no guarantee that I will agree with you.

      >
      > 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.

      JW:
      I agree with that. Here's the point. Per your article the Greek witness is ("c." mine):

      Origen c. 240

      Serapion c. 350

      Basil c. 363

      Cyril of J. c. 370

      Epiphanius c. 378

      Asterius c. 385

      Severian c. 390

      Cyril of A c. 390

      Hesychius c.430

      The only ones to explicitly quote long are the disputed Severian and less disputed Cyril of A. So good Greek Patristic confirmation of supposed Irenaeus comes about 200 years later. That's a lot of years and fathers to go with only abbreviations & short. Not to mention that Irenaeus was a famous, oft quoted father. As that great 20th century philosopher Kuschke said, "Looks are vastly underrated." So too is the qualitative criterion here of Coordination. Do I even need to likewise demonstrate with list that the later Latin is going Long? Early Irenaeus for Long does not coordinate for other important qualitative criteria either.

      If Irenaeus did omit "Jesus Christ" and "son of God" I have faith that it is better evidence that "Jesus Christ" was not there than it is that "son of God" was.


      Joseph





















    • Show all 23 messages in this topic