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

Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Patristic Witness

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.