7600Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Jerome Witness
- Nov 9, 2012
--- In email@example.com, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
> 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), 9394 (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?
"Doubt" here reminds me too much of the classic response of Bill Murray in Stripes when he is asked by the Army if he has ever been convicted of a felony. "Convicted? No.". Of course I doubt that Irenaeus referred to the Long. The better word here is "discount". How much do I discount the extant? You accept the extant and it becomes a cornerstone of your argument for. Not only do you apply no discount, you actually give it a premium as also helping to establish the earliest evidence of abbreviating. On the other side Professor Head has doubt (presumably grave) and exorcises Irenaeus from conclusion influence.
My complaint here to all is that I see informal, undeveloped methodologies by all which lack sufficient criteria and relative weighting of criteria. The remaining risk here for Irenaeus' Latin is not the Reconstruction risk, it is the Transmission risk. Who here has formally considered this? Someone, anyone, Bhueltter?
Specifically here, we have two main Latin manuscripts. I believe one has had the Chapter Headings (which are generally thought to be unoriginal) bleed into the text. Not inspiring confidence. Other than that I believe differences in entire sections are rare? Than there's the Armenian for Books IV and V which does differ from the Latin by entire sections. Obviously subsequent Patristic preferred Latin Irenaeus to Greek Irenaeus. Most would agree that Greek Patristic witness to Irenaeus here does tend to show an older text than the Latin text and the offending verse here, "prophets/prophet Isaiah", is an example.
Going general, most would agree that for Patristics in general, where there is extant Greek and Latin, there are examples of section differences. So, how much do we discount Latin Irenaeus here?
Do you still doubt that Latin Irenaeus evidence weighs less than Greek Irenaeus evidence?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>