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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.