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

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

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Wasserman
    Dear Mike, You wrote ... No, not in my opinion. ... It is very good in general to be cautious with patristic evidence, and in this case very careful since it
    Message 1 of 23 , Nov 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mike,

      You wrote 

      >Doing some backround research on the text of Irenaeus though is it not weak support to cite Irenaeus to support long ending of Mark 1:1? 

      No, not in my opinion.

      >The translators (Roberts and Donaldson) say, "the text of BOTH the Latin and Greek is OFTEN MOST UNCERTAIN. . . . one of our difficulties throughout has been to FIX THE READINGS WE SHOULD ADOPT, . . . . After the text has been SETTLED ACCORDING TO THE BEST JUDGEMENT which can be formed - the work of translation begins." 

      It is very good in general to be cautious with patristic evidence, and in this case very careful since it is a translation from Greek into Latin. It is necessary to consider the criteria for evaluating this patristic testimony in question (there are a number of good articles on criteria for evaluating patristic citations, e.g., by Gordon Fee and Carroll Osburn). 

      In relation to this specific problem: did Irenaeus know the long reading or the short reading or both?

      Irenaeus is citing a passage and appeals to a certain text in order to make a specific point. Consider "Against Heretics," Book III, chapters 9-10 and think about what Ireaneus is arguing, and how he is appealing to Mark 1:1 in the context – it is crucial that Jesus is God's Son. My point: We are not talking about a small phrase in Latin. We are talking about a certain explcit citation used to make a certain point.

      The same is applicable to 3.16.3, i.e., Irenaeus is making the same point that God and Jesus is one and the same, and he is citing several passages referring to Jesus as the Son of God. 

      Thus, we also have multiple attestation. Then we have a passage where Irenaeus abbreviates. That passage cannot be used as positive evidence for either the long or short reading. So which reading did Irenaeus know?

      I do not often cite John Burgon, but perhaps now is a good time to sum up my argument:

      "But the most illustrious name is behind. Irenaeus (a.d. 170) unquestionably read Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ in this place. He devotes a chapter of his great work to the proof that Jesus is the Christ,—very God as well as very Man; and establishes the doctrine against the Gnostics, by citing the Evangelists in turn. St. Mark's testimony he introduces by an apt appeal to Rom. i. 1-4, ix. 5, and Gal. iv. 4, 5: adding,—'The Son of God was made the Son of Man, in order that by Him we might obtain the adoption: Man carrying, and receiving, and enfolding the Son of God. Hence, Mark says,—"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets." ' Irenaeus had already, in an earlier chapter, proved by an appeal to the second and third Gospels that Jesus Christ is God. 'Quapropter et Marcus,' (he says) 'interpres et sectator Petri, initium Evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic: "Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in Prophetis," &c.' This at all events is decisive. The Latin of either place alone survives: yet not a shadow of doubt can be pretended as to how the man who wrote these two passages read the first verse of St. Mark's Gospel."

      The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1896), 284.


      Tommy Wasserman


       




      Mike Karoules
      Georgia, USA

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >


    • joewallack
      ... wrote: ... – and the Latin evidence to Irenaeus text carries great weight ... Petri, initium evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic:
      Message 2 of 23 , Nov 9, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.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), 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?


        JW:
        "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?


        Joseph







      • Tommy Wasserman
        Joseph, This will be my last message on this topic for now and I realize that I will hardly be able to persuade you; Mark 1:1 will probably remain one of the
        Message 3 of 23 , Nov 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Joseph,

          This will be my last message on this topic for now and I realize that I will hardly be able to persuade you; Mark 1:1 will probably remain one of the "1001 errors in the Christian bible" – the website I just realized that someone with the name "jwallack" maintains (I assume it is you), where readers are told, "Origen, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Victorinus all quote Mark 1:1 without 'son of God” (http://1001errors.com/files/Err140-146.html). In my opinion, this reference to Irenaeus is misleading, for the reasons I have already pointed out.

          You speak of my criteria as "informal, undeveloped, etc." For my part I use criteria as established by the leading scholars in the field, and I will refer to them again one last time.

          Gordon D. Fee, “The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ANRW 26.1 (1992) 256-8 observes that a high degree of certainty of a patristic citation exists in the following four instances:

          a. When in his discussion the Father makes a point of the very words used by a biblical author;

          b. When in a commentary or homily the discussion confirms the wording of a citation;

          c. When the Father actually cites a known variation to his own text;

          d. When in a commentary, homily, or polemical treatise, the Father repeats the text in the same way again and again.

          I have argued that a/b and d are applicable in Mark 1:1, and in this case, the Latin text of Irenaeus should be given great weight because we are not talking about an isolated phrase which could have been adapted after some Latin Gospel text, but we have two distinct passages where Irenaeus is making a specific point where the citations must make sense and are surrounded by other citations of significance. And the Latin version of Irenaeus work is happily, "literal to a fault" to use Johannes Quasten's words.

          You asked:

          "Do you still doubt that Latin Irenaeus evidence weighs less than Greek Irenaeus evidence?"

          Again it sounds as if you think there is Greek evidence for the shorter reading, which there is not (Peter Head depended on Harvey's Cambridge edition of Irenaeus from 1867 when he wrote is article – I asked him about that last year. I must also remind the readers of this list that there is no extant Greek manuscript of Adversus Haeresis in the passage we discuss. The Greek evidence is indirect, and, as I have pointed out, even that text has "The Beginning of the Gospel" with neither "Jesus Christ" nor "Son of God". And, in addition, in that context Irenaeus compares
          the evangelists (discussing how Gospels begin) to the four creatures in Rev. 4:7. He refers to Mark as the flying eagle and the focus is on the prophetic reference in Mark 1:2, demonstrating how the evangelist, as the eagle, spoke inspired by the prophetic Spirit from on high. There was a reason to omit (which is paralleled by other fathers who abbreviates Gospel incipits including Mark 1:1).

          In relation to a criterion applicable to the particular passage in Irenaeus where he simply has "The Beginning of the Gospel" , Carroll Osburn discusses "Accurate Citation With Partial Omission" stating: "If an otherwise accurate citation has a partial omission that is not known to occur elsewhere in the manuscript tradition, the omission should be considered as a patristic solecism and the accurate portion accepted as the Father’s text" (Carroll D. Osburn, "Method in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism," Novum Testamentum 47.4 [2005]: 325).

          Incidentally, one of Osburn's example (p. 326) is an omission by Irenaeus in 1 Cor 10:5, which Bart Ehrman,  The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 89, has identified as an orthodox omission:

          "Similarly, an argument has been made for an “orthodox omission” of ὁ θεός  at 1 Cor. 10:5 by Irenaeus. However, the supposed “omission”
          occurs at the end of the quotation and cannot be used as textual evidence. Following a lengthy and verbatim citation of 1 Cor. 10:1-12 with ὁ θεός in the text of v. 5, Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4.27.4, refers to v. 5, saying, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν οὐκ εὐδοκήσεν ὁ θεός. Later at 4.36.6, Irenaeus refers to v. 5 saying, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδοκήσεν, without ὁ θεός. However, this cannot be an orthodox 'omission' of ὁ θεός created to make Christ the subject of εὐδοκήσεν, because in the context of 4.36.5, Irenaeus is making the specific point of denoting God Himself as the judge. He says, 'There is one King and Lord, the Father of all,' who, when those invited did not obey Him, 'sent forth His armies and destroyed them.' Continuing his emphasis, he says in 4.36.6, 'the very same King who gathered from all quarters the faithful to the marriage of
          His Son . . . [also] orders that man to be cast into outer darkness who has not on a wedding garment.' Irenaeus then says, 'For as in the
          former covenant, with many of them He was not well pleased, so also is it the case here.' He continues, 'It is not, then, one god who judges and another Father who calls us . . . but it is one and the same God, the Father of our Lord.' The subject of εὐδοκήσεν in
          v. 5 is clearly not Χριστός, but ὁ θεός of the context. Obviously, Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4.36.6, cannot be cited in support of an 'omission'
          of ὁ θεός."

          Tell me if you accept any of these criteria which I have described, and what criteria you yourself use in your evaluation of patristic evidence.


          Tommy Wasserman




          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.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), 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?


          JW:
          "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?


          Joseph









        • joewallack
          ... I will hardly be able to persuade you; Mark 1:1 will probably remain one of the 1001 errors in the Christian bible †the website I just realized
          Message 4 of 23 , Nov 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
            >
            > Joseph,
            >
            > This will be my last message on this topic for now and I realize that I will hardly be able to persuade you; Mark 1:1 will probably remain one of the "1001 errors in the Christian bible" â€" the website I just realized that someone with the name "jwallack" maintains (I assume it is you), where readers are told, "Origen, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Victorinus all quote Mark 1:1 without 'son of God” (http://1001errors.com/files/Err140-146.html). In my opinion, this reference to Irenaeus is misleading, for the reasons I have already pointed out.

            JW:
            As Jim Carrey said in the classic "Liar, Liar" when getting out of the elevator, "It was meeee!". That was the earlier, funnier JoeWallack. The emphasis there is on Polemics and quantity. My newer site:

            ErrancyWiki

            is my in progress scholarly site that emphasizes quality. I think the articles there on the Birth Dating Contradiction and The Ending of Mark are the best articles ever written on those subjects. Thanks for the plug. As the Rabbis say:

            Know before whom you stand

            >
            > You speak of my criteria as "informal, undeveloped, etc." For my part I use criteria as established by the leading scholars in the field, and I will refer to them again one last time.
            >
            > Gordon D. Fee, “The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ANRW 26.1 (1992) 256-8 observes that a high degree of certainty of a patristic citation exists in the following four instances:
            >
            > a. When in his discussion the Father makes a point of the very words used by a biblical author;

            But it's not at all "the very words" and that's the point. That's the problem with translations, you are forced to use different words. I'll repeat, the main risk here is Transmission, not Reconstruction. Do my words have less weight here than your fellow Evangelical Professor Head?

            >
            > b. When in a commentary or homily the discussion confirms the wording of a citation;

            If you are referring to context than yes this helps a lot.

            >
            > c. When the Father actually cites a known variation to his own text;

            "cites a known variation to his own text" leads to "high degree of certainty". I don't think so.


            >
            > d. When in a commentary, homily, or polemical treatise, the Father repeats the text in the same way again and again.

            That helps too.

            >
            > I have argued that a/b and d are applicable in Mark 1:1, and in this case, the Latin text of Irenaeus should be given great weight because we are not talking about an isolated phrase which could have been adapted after some Latin Gospel text, but we have two distinct passages where Irenaeus is making a specific point where the citations must make sense and are surrounded by other citations of significance. And the Latin version of Irenaeus work is happily, "literal to a fault" to use Johannes Quasten's words.

            Even if you had all four you would still be a long way from what would be good evidence for "high degree of certainty". There are still many other criteria to consider like, oh I don't know, Age, Credibility, External Force.

            >
            > You asked:
            >
            > "Do you still doubt that Latin Irenaeus evidence weighs less than Greek Irenaeus evidence?"
            >
            > Again it sounds as if you think there is Greek evidence for the shorter reading, which there is not (Peter Head depended on Harvey's Cambridge edition of Irenaeus from 1867 when he wrote is article â€" I asked him about that last year. I must also remind the readers of this list that there is no extant Greek manuscript of Adversus Haeresis in the passage we discuss. The Greek evidence is indirect, and, as I have pointed out, even that text has "The Beginning of the Gospel" with neither "Jesus Christ" nor "Son of God". And, in addition, in that context Irenaeus compares
            > the evangelists (discussing how Gospels begin) to the four creatures in Rev. 4:7. He refers to Mark as the flying eagle and the focus is on the prophetic reference in Mark 1:2, demonstrating how the evangelist, as the eagle, spoke inspired by the prophetic Spirit from on high. There was a reason to omit (which is paralleled by other fathers who abbreviates Gospel incipits including Mark 1:1).
            >
            > In relation to a criterion applicable to the particular passage in Irenaeus where he simply has "The Beginning of the Gospel" , Carroll Osburn discusses "Accurate Citation With Partial Omission" stating: "If an otherwise accurate citation has a partial omission that is not known to occur elsewhere in the manuscript tradition, the omission should be considered as a patristic solecism and the accurate portion accepted as the Father’s text" (Carroll D. Osburn, "Method in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism,"Novum Testamentum 47.4 [2005]: 325).
            >
            > Incidentally, one of Osburn's example (p. 326) is an omission by Irenaeus in 1 Cor 10:5, which Bart Ehrman,�  The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 89, has identified as an orthodox omission:
            >
            > "Similarly, an argument has been made for an “orthodox omission” of ὁ θεός�  at 1 Cor. 10:5 by Irenaeus. However, the supposed “omission”
            > occurs at the end of the quotation and cannot be used as textual evidence. Following a lengthy and verbatim citation of 1 Cor. 10:1-12 with ὁ θεός in the text of v. 5, Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4.27.4, refers to v. 5, saying, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν οὐκ εὐδοκήσεν ὁ θεός. Later at 4.36.6, Irenaeus refers to v. 5 saying, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδοκήσεν, without ὁ θεός. However, this cannot be an orthodox 'omission' of ὁ θεός created to make Christ the subject of εὐδοκήσεν, because in the context of 4.36.5, Irenaeus is making the specific point of denoting God Himself as the judge. He says, 'There is one King and Lord, the Father of all,' who, when those invited did not obey Him, 'sent forth His armies and destroyed them.' Continuing his emphasis, he says in 4.36.6, 'the very same King who
            > gathered from all quarters the faithful to the marriage of
            > His Son . . . [also] orders that man to be cast into outer darkness who has not on a wedding garment.' Irenaeus then says, 'For as in the
            > former covenant, with many of them He was not well pleased, so also is it the case here.' He continues, 'It is not, then, one god who judges and another Father who calls us . . . but it is one and the same God, the Father of our Lord.' The subject of εὐδοκήσεν in
            > v. 5 is clearly not Χριστός, but ὁ θεός of the context. Obviously, Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4.36.6, cannot be cited in support of an 'omission'
            > of ὁ θεός."
            >
            > Tell me if you accept any of these criteria which I have described, and what criteria you yourself use in your evaluation of patristic evidence.
            >
            >
            > Tommy Wasserman


            JW:
            Be glad to start. The most important criterion I use is Credibility. Here the comparison is Irenaeus, if you accept him as Long, and Origen. Credibility consists of knowledge and objectivity. Now most early Patristics have relatively low credibility by modern standards (the only standard I use) so what we are doing is comparing their credibility to each other. Origen was a Textual Critic and I would rate him the outstanding scholar of the Early Church. Not much evidence that Irenaeus was a Textual Critic and his credibility was low by Patristic standards. Did you know that he thought the son of God was at the beginning of the Jewish Bible? So in the Credibility criterion I give the edge to Short.

            Our basic difference though is going to be those pesky early Greek references so I want to cover them completely. Again, the problem I have with the abbreviation theory is the cumulative lack of mention here of Greek "the son of God" with the importance of the phrase to the orthodox. So...

            Irenaeus 3.11.8 

            "Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"

            Compare to the Text:

            "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mark 1:2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,"

            The only difference being either "the son of God" or "Jesus Christ, the Son of God". Irenaeus explicitly says "son of God" twice in his related discussion and a major theme is the generation of Jesus. It seems reMarkable to me that he would invoke the offending phrase in his discussion but not in his quote.

            Basil Against Eunomius (Book II) 15 (Page 150)

            "And Mark made the preaching of John the beginning of the gospel, say-ing: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as is written in Isaiah the prophet: a voice of one crying out"

            Compare to the Text:

            "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.  The voice of one crying in the wilderness

            Here Basil has omitted "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way". But he has also omitted "son of God". The entire context here is the timing of the son of God so the omission from quotation is remarkable. Still no confirmation to Latin Irenaeus.


            Joseph







          • Vox Verax
            Joe Wallack stated: I think the articles there on the Birth Dating Contradiction and The Ending of Mark are the best articles ever written on those
            Message 5 of 23 , Nov 12, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Joe Wallack stated: "I think the articles there on the Birth Dating Contradiction and The Ending of Mark are the best articles ever written on those subjects."

              Setting aside the material about the date of Christ's birth, for the time being, I welcome all readers to visit the essay by Richard Carrier about Mark 16:9-20 which Joe has praised, and scroll down to the part about Irenaeus. Dr. Carrier proposed that Irenaeus' reference to Mk. 16:19 is an interpolation!

              When KJV-Onlyists do this sort of thing, exasperated researchers tend to recommend a book or two and then back away slowly, convinced that the KJV-Onlyists' appeals to evidence are facades, and that the KJV-Onlyists are agenda-driven, rather than evidence-driven. Is that also the option that should be taken when something similar is concluded about atheists/agnostics? While this might result in a measure of polarization, it might also reduce a lot of wasted effort to persuade the unpersuadeable.

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
            • yennifmit
              Hi Joe, Concerning Mk 1.1, it might be that Son of God was omitted in certain localities as an apologetic strategy. ( If only we could get people to read
              Message 6 of 23 , Nov 12, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Joe,

                Concerning Mk 1.1, it might be that "Son of God" was omitted in certain localities as an apologetic strategy. ("If only we could get people to read past the first sentence...") The omission of YIOY QEOY is found among certain texts which seem associated with the Eastern branch of Christianity (i.e. places where Syriac and cognates were spoken), e.g. 038, Syr. Pal., Arm., Geo., Origen.

                On thinking that the Son of God is at the beginning of the Hebrew Bible, the Apostle John says that the Word of God was with God in the beginning (alluding to the beginning of Genesis) and, later, the Word became a human being. Maybe Irenaeus was thinking of John's Gospel?

                Best,

                Tim Finney

                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "joewallack" <joewallack@...> wrote:
                > JW:
                > Be glad to start. The most important criterion I use is Credibility.
                > Here the comparison is Irenaeus, if you accept him as Long, and Origen.
                > Credibility consists of knowledge and objectivity. Now most early
                > Patristics have relatively low credibility by modern standards (the only
                > standard I use) so what we are doing is comparing their credibility to
                > each other. Origen was a Textual Critic and I would rate him the
                > outstanding scholar of the Early Church. Not much evidence that Irenaeus
                > was a Textual Critic and his credibility was low by Patristic standards.
                > Did you know that he thought the son of God was at the beginning of the
                > Jewish Bible? So in the Credibility criterion I give the edge to Short.
              • joewallack
                JW: Now let s call back to the witness stand that Eldritch Church Elder, Epiphanius, and his Necronomicon of Nosticism, the Panarion: Panarion Section 51 (Page
                Message 7 of 23 , Nov 13, 2012
                • 0 Attachment

                  JW:
                  Now let's call back to the witness stand that Eldritch Church Elder, Epiphanius, and his Necronomicon of Nosticism, the Panarion:

                  Panarion Section 51 (Page 26) 

                  The context of this section are the non-orthodox (northodox) who reject "John" because it contradicts the Synoptics. Epiphanius says the specific issue here (so to speak) is that the northodox believe Jesus had a human father in the traditonal way. He says "John" supplements the Synoptics by explaining that Jesus was God's son long before. He invokes "John" as stating that Jesus was "son of the Father" before the Gospel. He quotes "Luke" as saying "son of God" in the birth narrative. He can't likewise quote "Matthew" because he doesn't say it. I repeat, because he doesn't say it.

                  Epiphanius says:

                  "The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, A voice of one crying in the wilderness."

                  Compare to text:

                  "
                  The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

                  Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

                  The voice of one crying in the wilderness,"

                  So Epiphanius has exorcised "
                  Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way" and "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Epiphanius says the northodox are using "Mark" to support their position (page 31):

                  ""Look" they said here is a second Gospel too with an account of Christ, and nowhere does it say that his generation is heavenly. Instead they said, "the spirit descended upon him in the Jordan and a voice, "this is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.""

                  If the text had said "son of God" at 1:1 than Epiphanius likely would have used it since he would consider it evidence from "Mark" that Jesus was the son of God before the baptism. He discusses the related text of the Gospels in detail looking for any support so the context indicates it was not there. Professor Ehrman briefly mentions the issue in TOCoS but doesn't going into the timing. Consider that at the time Epiphanius writes about the issue there is no extant Greek support (coordination).

                  Epiphanius has provided us with the motive to add "son of God" and subsequent to him is when the extant Greek evidence for it starts.

                  Actually, when we get to the Internal evidence we will see that "Mark" never gives "son of God" as an editorial comment. It is always via narrative (revelation, same as Paul). Theme is important because it contains the qualitative criterion of scope.

                  So the maratheon has now run through Epiphanius with no confirmation of Latin Ireaneus' "son of God".

                  Joseph
                   









                • Tommy Wasserman
                  I thought I would not have to do this, but now we are switching from Irenaeus to Epiphanius (d. 403), so I will have to continue this marathon, after having
                  Message 8 of 23 , Nov 14, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I thought I would not have to do this, but now we are switching from Irenaeus to Epiphanius (d. 403), so I will have to continue this marathon, after having established that Irenaeus clearly attests to the long reading, but not the short. 

                    Again, it is a matter of criteria: It is plain that in the case of Epiphanius you appeal to an argument from silence. You agree that Epiphanius (just like Irenaeus) abbreviates his text and doesn't even include Jesus Christ (which is also Christologically important; why did he leave "Jesus Christ" out – he doesn't seem worried about this at all). That is good. But this abbreviated citation, then, according to established methodology can of course not be used in support of either the long or short reading! (it was erroneously indicated in UBS3 but removed in UBS4.) The only "correlation" I see here is a tendency on the part of patristic authors, which is rather widespread, to abbreviate their text. 

                    Moreover, the divine sonship of Jesus was clearly taken for granted by both Ireneaus and Epiphanius.  They apparently saw no danger in abbreviating their text omitting neither "Jesus Christ" (both) nor "Son of God" (at least Irenaeus in one passage). Some decades later, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) cites the long reading and makes a point of it. As for "coordination" and "extant Greek support" I trust you know that Vaticanus is dated to the fourth century (and I have argued that the correction in Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the earliest layer, produced in the scriptorium).

                    Well, the evidence suggests that there is early evidence for both readings. It is a hard decision, but let's use established criteria when analysing the data, in particular the patristic testimony. 

                    Finally, why don't you pull down your old website, in light of what you said in  your previous message: "As Jim Carrey said in the classic 'Liar, Liar' when getting out of the elevator, 'It was meeee!'. That was the earlier, funnier JoeWallack. The emphasis there is on Polemics and quantity." Indeed, that statement is revealing.  

                    Tommy Wasserman



                    13 nov 2012 kl. 17.59 skrev joewallack:

                     


                    JW:
                    Now let's call back to the witness stand that Eldritch Church Elder, Epiphanius, and his Necronomicon of Nosticism, the Panarion:

                    Panarion Section 51 (Page 26) 

                    The context of this section are the non-orthodox (northodox) who reject "John" because it contradicts the Synoptics. Epiphanius says the specific issue here (so to speak) is that the northodox believe Jesus had a human father in the traditonal way. He says "John" supplements the Synoptics by explaining that Jesus was God's son long before. He invokes "John" as stating that Jesus was "son of the Father" before the Gospel. He quotes "Luke" as saying "son of God" in the birth narrative. He can't likewise quote "Matthew" because he doesn't say it. I repeat, because he doesn't say it.

                    Epiphanius says:

                    "The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, A voice of one crying in the wilderness."

                    Compare to text:

                    "
                    The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

                    Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

                    The voice of one crying in the wilderness,"

                    So Epiphanius has exorcised "
                    Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way" and "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Epiphanius says the northodox are using "Mark" to support their position (page 31):

                    ""Look" they said here is a second Gospel too with an account of Christ, and nowhere does it say that his generation is heavenly. Instead they said, "the spirit descended upon him in the Jordan and a voice, "this is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.""

                    If the text had said "son of God" at 1:1 than Epiphanius likely would have used it since he would consider it evidence from "Mark" that Jesus was the son of God before the baptism. He discusses the related text of the Gospels in detail looking for any support so the context indicates it was not there. Professor Ehrman briefly mentions the issue in TOCoS but doesn't going into the timing. Consider that at the time Epiphanius writes about the issue there is no extant Greek support (coordination).

                    Epiphanius has provided us with the motive to add "son of God" and subsequent to him is when the extant Greek evidence for it starts.

                    Actually, when we get to the Internal evidence we will see that "Mark" never gives "son of God" as an editorial comment. It is always via narrative (revelation, same as Paul). Theme is important because it contains the qualitative criterion of scope.

                    So the maratheon has now run through Epiphanius with no confirmation of Latin Ireaneus' "son of God".

                    Joseph
                     











                  • joewallack
                    ... Epiphanius you appeal to an argument from silence. You agree that Epiphanius (just like Irenaeus) abbreviates his text and doesn t even include Jesus
                    Message 9 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
                      > Again, it is a matter of criteria: It is plain that in the case of Epiphanius you appeal to an argument from silence. You agree that Epiphanius (just like Irenaeus) abbreviates his text and doesn't even include Jesus Christ (which is also Christologically important; why did he leave "Jesus Christ" out – he doesn't seem worried about this at all). That is good. But this abbreviated citation, then, according to established methodology can of course not be used in support of either the long or short reading! (it was erroneously indicated in UBS3 but removed in UBS4.) The only "correlation" I see here is a tendency on the part of patristic authors, which is rather widespread, to abbreviate their text.
                      >
                      > Moreover, the divine sonship of Jesus was clearly taken for granted by both Ireneaus and Epiphanius. They apparently saw no danger in abbreviating their text omitting neither "Jesus Christ" (both) nor "Son of God" (at least Irenaeus in one passage). Some decades later, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) cites the long reading and makes a point of it.

                      JW:
                      The better question than why they left out "Jesus Christ" is why you keep leaving out the context of their arguments. The context of these Patristics here is often the timing of the son of God. When did Jesus become son of God and specifically, why does "Mark" not show Jesus as becoming son of God until the baptism (Ehrman). The northodox they are arguing with all accept that the person/spirit/personspirit that is referred to here is "Jesus Christ". Patristics are quoting the text, the same text they claim the northodox have, to try and prove orthodox. Hence, quoting agreed text does not help their argument = reason to abbreviate. A "son of God" in the text, before the Baptism, not only is a difference between orthodox/northodox, it is exactly what these orthodox are arguing about (the next Patristic here makes this explicit). For these cumulative Patristics not to invoke "son of God" from the text we all agree they are referring to is better explained by it not being there to invoke.


                      >As for "coordination" and "extant Greek support" I trust you know that Vaticanus is dated to the fourth century

                      Yes, right around the time that the Patristics have identified that "the son of God" right there in "Mark" would come in handy. Vaticanus has it, Sinaiticus does not. Coordination.

                      >and I have argued that the correction in Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the earliest layer, produced in the scriptorium).

                      I did want to comment on this. You take the correction in Sinaiticus as an asset because it is another witness for Long (ala Snapp). Actually is goes beyond just being a key witness for Short. An important qualitative criterion is direction of change, and here we have clear extant that the direction was to Long.

                      > Finally, why don't you pull down your old website, in light of what you said in your previous message: "

                      Because I was just abbreviating. Onto the next Patristic witness:

                      ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: CATECHETICAL LECTURES LECTURE III. ON BAPTISM. 

                      "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, &c.: John came baptising in the wilderness"

                      Your commentary:

                      "Similarly, Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) wants to demonstrate how John the Baptist begins the new gospel era and cites only a part of Mark 1:1–4 in Catecheses adilluminandos 3.6.1, including the short reading.41 Since the abbreviation is explicit, the omitted part of the citation being represented by the words καὶ τὰ á¼`ξῆς, this citation carries less weight as evidence for the short reading"

                      JW:
                      Let me add to it. Cyril gives part of the missing text early on (1):

                      "For the voice is heard of one cryingin the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord"

                      He adds (2):

                      "
                      Make straight the way of the Lord"

                      So the only part of the start of "Mark" he is missing besides "son of God" is the prophetic prediction.

                      Part of his argument (11):

                      "
                      If the Son of God was baptized"

                      Why not quote that if it's in the text. He's making a treatise out of a few verses.

                      And, as the Brits says, the cruncher (14):

                      "
                      Jesus Christ was the Son of God, yet He preached not the Gospel beforeHis Baptism. If the Master Himself followed the right time in due order, oughtwe, His servants, to venture out of order? From that time Jesus began topreach[5], when the Holy Spirit had descended upon Him in a bodily shape, like adove[6]; not that Jesus might see Him first, for He knew Him even before He camein a bodily shape, but that John, who was baptizing Him, might behold Him. ForI, saith he, knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, He saidunto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on Him,that is He[7]. If thou too hast unfeigned piety, the Holy Ghost cometh down onthee also, and a Father's voice sounds over thee from on high--not, "This isMy Son," but, "This has now been made My son;" for the "is" belongs to Himalone, because In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and theWord was God[8]. To Him belongs the "is," since He is always the Son of God: butto thee "has now been made:" since thou hast not the sonship by nature, butreceivest it by adoption. He eternally "is;" but thou receivest the grace byadvancement."

                      Cyril's point/apology here is that the Synoptics appear to show Jesus as becoming son of God at baptism. Cyril's spin is that it is only from the standpoint of the witness that Jesus became son of God at the baptism. Jesus was "son of God" before the baptism (ala "John") and he (Jesus) knew/knows/will know it. Being able to quote "Mark" as saying "son of God" before the baptism is exactly what he would have wanted and done had it been there, same as his fellow Patristics.


                      Joseph





                    • Jonathan C. Borland
                      Dear List, I appreciate the sensible analysis that Dr. Wasserman has called attention to. On the other hand, Joe Wallack writes . . . ... All who have actually
                      Message 10 of 23 , Nov 17, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear List,

                        I appreciate the sensible analysis that Dr. Wasserman has called attention to. On the other hand, Joe Wallack writes . . .

                        Cyril's point/apology here is that the Synoptics appear to show Jesus as becoming son of God at baptism.


                        All who have actually read Cyril would know that the above statement is absurd. Wallack also claims . . .

                        Being able to quote "Mark" as saying "son of God" before the baptism is exactly what he would have wanted and done had it been there, same as his fellow Patristics.


                        Actually Cyril is clearly speaking from Matthew ("from that time Jesus began to preach" [Matt 4:17]; "this is my son" [Matt 3:17]), and furthermore your argument from silence is, as such an argument always is, a non-argument.

                        For Cyril actually uses an appropriate reference to demonstrate Jesus' eternality (John 1:1), since a statement like "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God" is nothing more than the author's declaration of Jesus' divine nature at the time of the author's writing and not a declaration of Jesus' status at the time in the narrative before his baptism. And so in this sense the declaration in Mark 1:1 is no different than Jesus being called the "Christ" by the narrator in Matt 1:17 (before his baptism).

                        Therefore, anyone throughout history who should have used the longer version of Mark 1:1 to "prove" that Jesus was the Son of God before his baptism would have been ridiculed as stupid and called bad names by his opponents, since obviously it doesn't prove any such thing. Oh, that's right. No one has ever done this, except the ones you claim would have done so if Mark 1:1 had the "Son of God" in it. Glad they weren't so stupid.

                        Sincerely,

                        Jonathan C. Borland
                      • joewallack
                        JW: Professor Wasserman, I am in the process of building the argument for Short at my site, Mark 1:1 ,
                        Message 11 of 23 , Nov 22, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment

                          JW:
                          Professor Wasserman, I am in the process of building the argument for Short at my site, Mark 1:1 , and am currently considering the relationship between what was the context of the Patristic argument and the time period. There does seem to be a relationship in that as time goes by the argument moves from broader to more specific issues. Note (in the Greek):

                          Irenaeus c. 190 Context = How many Gospels there should be. The offending phrase makes no difference to his argument.

                          Origen c. 240 Context (1.14) = The Christian Bible is a continuation of the Jewish Bible.
                          The offending phrase would not make much difference to his argument.

                                                 Context (6.14, your related footnote says "6.24" so I no longer consider your article perfect) = Trying to harmonize the Gospels. Potentially more specific, but his specific context is John the Baptist here and not Jesus. So, the offending phrase is not important.

                                                 Context (2.4) = The Christian Bible is a continuation of the Jewish Bible. The offending phrase would not make much difference to his argument.

                          Serapion c. 350 Context (per you, still trying to track it down for myself) = Same as Origen, The Christian Bible is a continuation of the Jewish Bible.

                          In summary, to the middle of the fourth century, no known Patristic arguments where the offending phrase would make a difference.

                          Forward to Cyril of Jerusalem c. 370, where I've indicated his context is specifically whether Jesus was the son of God before the Baptism. Add in Epiphanius c. 378 who has the same context and identifies "Mark" as the specific problem. Now in the 4th century, Long would be specifically useful to the orthodox. By an act of Providence this is also about when Long first appears in the record (Vaticanus). I don't know about Sweden but Motive and Opportunity is often enough to convict (so to speak) in the United States.

                          I also have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is regarding Cyril of Alexandria, you wrote:


                          "Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) cite sthe long reading of Mark 1:1 in Against Julian 10.330.
                          50In spite of the lack of a modern critical edition of this work, the evidence is solid, since Cyril explicitly appeals to the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ in his discussion of the nature of the Son, divine but made visible (in the flesh) to all.51"

                          "
                          ↵50 Cyril of Alexandria, Iul. 3.330: Î"ράφει γοῦν [Μάρκος]� �Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ�. Ὁ δὲ Θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ ἀληθῶς Υἱὸς, ὅτι πάντως που καὶ Θεός ἐστι, πῶς οὐχ ἅπασιν ἐναργές; (PG 76, cols. 1007�8).
                          • ↵51 A reference to Cyril of Alexandria was present in UBS3. It is unclear to me why it has been removed in UBS4."

                          Your explanation does not make sense to me anyway since you appear to be relying on Cyril's commentary and not quote but in Cyril of Alexandria by Russell there is no reference to Mark 1:1 in the index and I do not see it in the text. What I do see is a reference to the son of God in the Jewish Bible. Is that what you are referring to? (Irenaeus, look out!).

                          The Good News (so to speak) is that while I have Ehrman on my side you now have Borland (must resist temptation, not..resisting..well) on yours. He can help you add to your arsenal of English vocabulary with words like "absurd", "ridiculed", "stupid" (used multiple times for effect) and "bad names" and use them sincerely.


                          Joseph









                           






                        • tommy.wasserman
                          Joe Wallack, Your explanation does not make sense to me anyway since you appear to be relying on Cyril s commentary and not quote but in Cyril of Alexandria by
                          Message 12 of 23 , Nov 23, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Joe Wallack,

                            Your explanation does not make sense to me anyway since you appear to be relying on Cyril's commentary and not quote but in Cyril of Alexandria by Russell there is no reference to Mark 1:1 in the index and I do not see it in the text. What I do see is a reference to the son of God in the Jewish Bible. Is that what you are referring to? (Irenaeus, look out!).

                            I will not debate with you further, but for the benefit of other readers who might learn something from this conversation, I will give you a final advice: If you must use an English translation, do make sure to read the introduction to the work so that you understand what you have in your hand.

                            "The translation is from P.Burguière and P.Evieux, Cyrilled'Alexandrie, Contre Julien, tome 1, livres I et II, SC 322, Paris1985, with the exception of the final passage, from Book 5, which is from Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 76" (Russell, p. 191). And in the left margin of that small excerpt you have references to Migne's PG (starting with 509A). As you see in my footnote you can find the citation I was referring to in Migne, PG 76:1007-8.

                            End of conversation.

                            Tommy Wasserman

                            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "joewallack" <joewallack@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > JW:
                            > Professor Wasserman, I am in the process of building the argument for
                            > Short at my site, Mark 1:1
                            > <http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:1> , and am
                            > currently considering the relationship between what was the context of
                            > the Patristic argument and the time period. There does seem to be a
                            > relationship in that as time goes by the argument moves from broader to
                            > more specific issues. Note (in the Greek):
                            >
                            > Irenaeus c. 190 Context = How many Gospels there should be. The
                            > offending phrase makes no difference to his argument.
                            >
                            > Origen c. 240 Context (1.14) = The Christian Bible is a continuation of
                            > the Jewish Bible. The offending phrase would not make much difference to
                            > his argument.
                            >
                            > Context (6.14, your related footnote says "6.24"
                            > so I no longer consider your article perfect) = Trying to harmonize the
                            > Gospels. Potentially more specific, but his specific context is John the
                            > Baptist here and not Jesus. So, the offending phrase is not important.
                            >
                            > Context (2.4) = The Christian Bible is a
                            > continuation of the Jewish Bible. The offending phrase would not make
                            > much difference to his argument.
                            >
                            > Serapion c. 350 Context (per you, still trying to track it down for
                            > myself) = Same as Origen, The Christian Bible is a continuation of the
                            > Jewish Bible.
                            >
                            > In summary, to the middle of the fourth century, no known Patristic
                            > arguments where the offending phrase would make a difference.
                            >
                            > Forward to Cyril of Jerusalem c. 370, where I've indicated his context
                            > is specifically whether Jesus was the son of God before the Baptism. Add
                            > in Epiphanius c. 378 who has the same context and identifies "Mark" as
                            > the specific problem. Now in the 4th century, Long would be specifically
                            > useful to the orthodox. By an act of Providence this is also about when
                            > Long first appears in the record (Vaticanus). I don't know about Sweden
                            > but Motive and Opportunity is often enough to convict (so to speak) in
                            > the United States.
                            >
                            > I also have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is regarding
                            > Cyril of Alexandria, you wrote:
                            >
                            > "Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) cite sthe long reading of Mark 1:1 in
                            > Against Julian 10.330.50
                            > <http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/20.full.pdf%20html#fn-50> In
                            > spite of the lack of a modern critical edition of this work, the
                            > evidence is solid, since Cyril explicitly appeals to the words
                            > υἱοῦ θεοῦ in his discussion of the nature of the Son,
                            > divine but made visible (in the flesh) to all.51"
                            > <http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/20.full.pdf%20html#fn-51>
                            >
                            > "
                            > ↵
                            > <http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/20.full.pdf%20html#xref-fn-5\
                            > 0-1> 50 Cyril of Alexandria, Iul. 3.330: Î"ράφει
                            > γοῦν [Μάρκος]� �Ἀρχὴ τοῦ
                            > εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
                            > Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ�. Ὁ δὲ Θεοῦ
                            > κατὰ φύσιν καὶ ἀληθῶς
                            > Υἱὸς, ὅτι πάντως που καὶ
                            > Θεός ἐστι, πῶς οὐχ
                            > ἅπασιν ἐναργές; (PG 76, cols.
                            > 1007�8).
                            > * ↵
                            > <http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/20.full.pdf%20html#xref-fn-5\
                            > 1-1> 51 A reference to Cyril of Alexandria was present in UBS3. It
                            > is unclear to me why it has been removed in UBS4."
                            >
                            > Your explanation does not make sense to me anyway since you appear to be
                            > relying on Cyril's commentary and not quote but in Cyril of Alexandria
                            > by Russell there is no reference to Mark 1:1 in the index and I do not
                            > see it in the text. What I do see is a reference to the son of God in
                            > the Jewish Bible. Is that what you are referring to? (Irenaeus, look
                            > out!).
                            >
                            >
                            > The Good News (so to speak) is that while I have Ehrman on my side you
                            > now have Borland (must resist temptation, not..resisting..well) on
                            > yours. He can help you add to your arsenal of English vocabulary with
                            > words like "absurd", "ridiculed", "stupid" (used multiple times for
                            > effect) and "bad names" and use them sincerely.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Joseph
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.