JoeWallack

JW:
Au contraire Petaire. Actually I think the major Textual Critic players here all agree that Short has "widespread" Textual support (mixing Text-types and Versions). Per Ehrman's TOCoS (72-73):

1) Caesarean

2) Alexandrian

3) Palestinian

4) Armenian

5) Georgian

6) Western

Wasserman, the foremost defender of Long the world has ever known, confesses:

1) Add to this Sahidic

2) Add to this Arabic

3) "the short reading has rather early and widespread support as evident from the patristic and versional evidence, as well as the new unedited Oxyrhynchus papyrus"

Neither adds all the first 200 hundred years of Greek Patristic witness like I am in the process of doing here. Ehrman, because he thinks it unnecessary, and Wasserman, because he thinks most of them are "abbreviating".

The traditional argument for Long here is not the quality of the text-types but the quantity. A familiar situation in Textual Criticism such as AE verses LE. Now why would the favored reading by the orthodox end up having the quantity. Someone, anyone, Bueltmanler?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

I agree that this is the Caesarean reading. One issue is that both the Armenian and the Georgian have been strongly influenced by the Caesarean. I doubt if they can be considered independent witnesses to the short reading.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
The next Patristic witness is Basil c. 363:

Against Eunomius (Book II) 15 (Page 150)

Compare to the Text:

Wasserman points out that the omission of the second half of verse 2 is support for the omission of "the son of God" in verse 1. But again, the cumulative absence of Patristic quotation of "son of God" here suggests the more likely explanation that it did not exist/was not accepted as original at this time. Also note here that Basil's context is the timing of "the son of God" so it would be reMarkable for him to exorcise it from his related quote.

Note - if you are waiting for an early Greek Patristic support for Long you are going to have to wait a while longer. So rationalize out your Appolocorn and get some margerinal witness to spray on top of it.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

mountainman

:eating_popcorn:







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

JoeWallack

JW:
The next Patristic witness is Cyril of Jerusalem c. 370:

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

Compare to the Text:

Cyril gives part of the missing text early on (1):

"For the voice is heard of one crying in 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):

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.

The serious student should note here that following the crooked and wide path of the Patristics, the orthodox are moving towards having increasing motivation to give birth to "son of God" in 1:1 to support Jesus always being the son of God. This is the priMary general point of Ehrman's TOCoS. If you can provide reasonable motivation in context (provenance) for a change the weight of your conclusion is multiplied more than the loafer's is. For those who need points against sharply explained, like Wasserman, the 4th century is when we see the orthodox motivation reaching the textual bolloxing points and this is exactly when the 1st extant support for Long appears, the changed Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Speaking of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, in an irony that I think the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, while the Fundies badmouth these two as corrupt transMissions of the original which have survived thanks to Satan, I suspect that both are actually new born products of the 4th century orthodox/Gnostic dispute and that is why they survived. Sinaiticus was "correctly" edited and Vaticanus went the full frontal nativity. The less edited earlier Manuscripts were exponentially better support for the Gnostics.

Word.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
The next Patristic witness is the evil & wicked Church Father [redundant]Epiphanius c. 378, author of the evil & wicked Necronomicon of Christianity, The Panarion:

Panarion Section 51 (Page 26)

Compare to the Text:

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):

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 the only known extant Greek support is Vaticanus (coordination).

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


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
I obtained Joel Watts' Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) with the bad intention of doing a special on it here at FRDB, giving it "The Wallack Treatment" and ripping him a New Testament. After skimming through it though I have to confess that it is not half bad.

Watts makes interesting observations as to possible sources for "Mark", including additional possibilities for my famous "Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus and Lucan. While I'm at it Watts' Methodology is god-awful, no formal development or use of criteria so all he is really doing is proof-texting. Thus it's easy to see how he easily sees HJ and is improperly dismissive of MJ which have superior Methodology.

Anyway, specifically for this Thread, I'm interested in Watts' observations on Mark 1:1. He writes on page 191 in support of Short:

1) "Son of God" is only used by Jesus' enemies.

Actually this is wrong. "The Jews" never use this. It is the Spirits that do until the Roman at the end. Amazing that Watts would miss this. Bonus material for Solo = "This man was the son of God".

2) "Mark" emphasizes Jesus' humanity (son of maness) so he would have been unlikely to tag Jesus as son of God at the start.

Go(o)d one.

3) "Mark's" style is one of Mystery. Who is Jesus? It would be unusual rhetoric to answer that question at the beginning.

As I've mentioned "Mark" never applies "son of God" by editorial comment.

4) "Mark's" Jesus' reaction to the early proclamations of "son of God" is to shut up! Presumably the author would not want his Jesus to get sore with him.

Overall, good Internal evidence for Short. Watts sounds like a Putz from Vridar's X-tianpose Joel Watts: Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? but being Jewish I'm more interested in Scholarship than Personality.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
The next Patristic witness is Asterius c. 385.

Per Wasserman:
Compare to the Text:
Here Wasserman confesses that this is simply a quote of the Short. While he is in a confessional mood, Wasserman further confesses that Asterius is commenting on the heading of Psalm 9 and specifically the "son" in it and making/creating a connection to Mark 1:2 with Jesus supposedly the end of the Law in the Jewish bible and the start of a new era as witnessed by "Mark". Therefore, the context of Asterius indicates it (son) was not there to use.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Considering Tatian as witness here:

his related witness is the Diatessaron

JW:
For those following at home schooling:

THE TEXT OF THE DIATESSARON

and regarding the offending verse of this Thread:

Mark 1:1

It is nowhere to be found in the Diatessaron. We have the following reasons to think this is evidence that Mark 1:1 either outright did not exist at this time or was recognized by Tatian as likely not original:

1) Tatian used almost all of "Mark".

2) There is no clear reason for Tatian to exorcise 1:1.

3) It would be natural for Tatian to start his Gospel with it as his theology is that Jesus started as son of God.

4) The Diatessaron likewise does not have the start of "Matthew" or "Luke" again suggesting that either they outright did not exist at this time or were recognized by Tatian as likely not original. If "Matthew" and "Luke" had beginnings added (which their primary source "Mark" did not have) than that is evidence that "Mark" did too.

5) Already presented in this unHoly Thread is Internal evidence that Mark 1:1 is not original:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...9&postcount=60

Where Elliott argues (well) that all of 1:1-3 is unoriginal.

So, this is real scholarship but don't mistake it as proving Mark 1:1 is forged. As always you'd need Source Criticism for that. It merely suggests that 1:1 is forged. Uncertainty is still the champion here due to lack of any related quality evidence and that uncertainty makes all candidates here possible.

Now, getting all the way back to the specific question of this Thread, if there is evidence that Mark 1:1 is not original, is that evidence that the "son of god" in 1:1 is an addition?

As Kenneth Mars said in the classic Young Frankenstein "of gorse" in an absolute sense. In a relative sense though if all of 1:1 is an addition is that evidence that "son of God" is a even later addition to the prior addition of 1:1?

I think so as general evidence of editing in the neighborhood is evidence of specific editing there and specifically general addition evidence is specifically evidence of specific addition editing.

Thus I will add Tatian as evidence against Long and note the coordination with the other evidence as there is no quality evidence that Long even existed in Tatian's time.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

James The Least

It's an addition. I think that Mark had the Roman centurion declare, "Surely this was the Son of God!" after the crucifixion for a reason. Mark's point was that none of "The Jews" recognized the Messiah, but a Gentile did. Christianity being a Gentile adaptation/corruption of Diaspora Judaism, one of Mark's main objectives in the myth was to "let the reader understand" that the Jews had no right to claim exclusivity over the Scriptures or YHWH, because they had killed the Messiah. Only Gentiles recognized Jesus as the Messiah. So, this was part of Mark's cliffhanger ending: will anybody recognize this Great Man for what he really was? Eventually someone does, but only after "The Jews" had killed him. The good, pacifist Romans tried to do everything they could to stop it, but they were helpless little lambs next to the super-villiany of "The Jews."