stephan huller

I thought I would take a break from reading the Gospel Eyewitness thread (which only depresses me) and look to see whether the Latinisms in our canonical text of Mark show up in early witnesses. Right off the bat when I look at the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers index I don't see a single reference to any of these passages:

Examples of Latinisms in the Gospel of Mark are as follows:

So now we go on to biblindex (which strangely does not pick up Irenaeus). Here's what we get for chapters 1 - 4

The Latinism appears here - καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον ἕνα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ γεγράφ θαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο, μετὰ τοῦ καὶ ἄλλους δύο ἀδελφούς, υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου ὄντας, ἐπωνομακέναι ὀνόματι τοῦ Βοανεργές, ὅ ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς ...

Yet this is a common phrase in early Christian literature. Those who argue for an Aramaic origin to the gospel say it is a Semiticism. I don't know what to make of it. It has to also be noted that the author himself uses this phrase occassionally as well. Look at Dialogue 2:

ἢ δοκεῖς κατόψεσθαί τι τῶν εἰς εὐδαιμονίαν συντελούντων, εἰ μὴ ταῦτα πρῶτον διδαχθείης, ἃ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν περισπάσει καὶ τοῖς νοητοῖς αὐτὴν παρασκευάσει χρησίμην, ὥστε αὐτὸ κατιδεῖν τὸ καλὸν καὶ αὐτὸ ὅ ἐστιν ἀγαθόν

Do you expect to perceive any of those things which conduce to a happy life, if you have not been first informed on those points which wean the soul from sensible objects, and render it fitted for objects which appertain to the mind, so that it can contemplate that which is honourable in its essence and that which is good in its essence?

It is not present in the First Apology but it is present in the Second Apology:

οὐδὲν δὲ θαυμαστόν, εἰ τοὺς οὐ κατὰ σπερματικοῦ λόγου μέρος, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς λόγου, ὅ ἐστι Χριστοῦ, γνῶσιν καὶ θεωρίαν πολὺ μᾶλλον μι σεῖσθαι οἱ δαίμονες ἐλεγχόμενοι ἐνεργοῦσιν· οἳ τὴν ἀξίαν
κόλασιν καὶ τιμωρίαν κομίσονται ἐν αἰωνίῳ πυρὶ ἐγκλεισθέντες

And at the beginning of Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book Five:

Καθὼς ὁ μακάριος Ἀπόστολός φησιν ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ ὅτι «Μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ», οὐ περὶ πνευματικοῦ τινος καὶ ἀοράτου ἀνθρώπου λέγων ταῦτα, «τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα οὔτε ὀστέα οὔτε σάρκας ἔχει», ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκονομίας, τῆς ἐκ σαρκῶν καὶ νεύρων καὶ ὀστέων συνεστώσης, ἥτις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα αὐτοῦ τρέφεται καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ὅ ἐστι σῶμα αὐτοῦ αὔξετα

And in Book Four of Irenaeus's Against Heresies:

Ὡς οὖν ὁ ἀπόστολος δυνατὸς μὲν ἦν διδόναι τὸ βρῶμα–οἷς γὰρ ἂν ἐπετίθουν οἱ ἀπόστολοι τὰς χεῖρας ἐλάμβανον Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ὅ ἐστι βρῶμα ζωῆς–,ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἠδυνάτουν λαβεῖν αὐτὸ διὰ τὸ ἀσθενῆ ἔτι καὶ ἀγύμναστα ἔχειν τὰ αἰσθητήρια τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν συγγυμνασίας, οὕτως καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁ μὲν Θεὸς δυνατὸς ἦν διδόναι τὸ τέλειον τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἄρτι γεγονὼς ἀδύνατος ἦν λαβεῖν αὐτό, ἢ καὶ λαβὼν χωρῆσαι, ἢ καὶ χωρήσας κατασχεῖν. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο συνενηπίασεν ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τέλειος ὤν, τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, οὐ δι' ἑαυτὸν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου νήπιον, οὕτω χωρούμενος ὡς ἄνθρωπος αὐτὸν χωρεῖν ἠδύνατο. Οὐ περὶ τὸν Θεὸν οὖν τὸ ἀδύνατον καὶ ἐνδεές, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὸν νεωστὶ γεγονότα ἄνθρωπον, ὅτι μὴ ἀγένητος ἦν (4.23)

And the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians:

μηδὲ πειράσητε εὔλογόν τι φαίνεσθαι ἰδίᾳ ὑμῖν, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό· μία προσευχή, μία δέησις, εἷς νοῦς, μία ἐλπὶς ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ἐν τῇ χαρᾷ τῇ ἀμώμῳ, ὅ ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὗ ἄμεινον οὐθέν ἐστιν

And again in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians:

Ὃς γὰρ ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι καλεῖται πλέον τούτου, οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ θεοῦ.Ὑπέρθεσθε οὖν τὴν κακὴν ζύμην, τὴν παλαιωθεῖσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν, καὶ μεταβάλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην, ὅ ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός

And twice in one line in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians:

Ὑμεῖς οὖν τὴν πραϋπάθειαν ἀναλαβόντες ἀνακτίσασθε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πίστει, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

And again in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians:

Oὐ δύναται οὖν κεφαλὴ χωρὶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνευ μελῶν, τοῦ θεοῦ ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλομένου, ὅ ἐστιν αὐτός

And twice again in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans:

Ἄρτον θεοῦ θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, «τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος ∆αυίδ», καὶ πόμα θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτο

And again in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:

Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ γένοιτό μοι αὐτῶν μνημονεύειν, μέχρις οὗ μετανοήσωσιν εἰς τὸ πάθος, ὅ ἐστιν ἡμῶν ἀνάστασι

And again in the Second Letter of Clement to the Corinthians:

εἰ δὲ λέγομεν εἶναι τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα Χριστόν, ἄρα οὖν ὁ ὑβρίσας τὴν σάρκα ὕβρισεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. ὁ τοιοῦτος οὖν οὐ μεταλήψεται τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός

And again the Epistle of Barnabas

Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπέμεινεν ὁ κύριος παραδοῦναι τὴν σάρκα εἰς καταφθοράν, ἵνα τῇ ἀφέσει τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἁγνισθῶ μεν, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ῥαντίσματι αὐτοῦ τοῦ αἵματος (5.1)

And again in the Epistle of Barnabas

Ὁρᾶτε πῶς λέγει· «Οὐ τὰ νῦν σάββατα ἐμοὶ δεκτά, ἀλλὰ ὃ πεποίηκα, ἐν ᾧ κατα παύσας τὰ πάντα ἀρχὴν ἡμέρας ὀγδόης ποιήσω, ὅ ἐστιν ἄλλου κόσμου ἀρχήν (15.8)

And again in the Epistle to Barnabas

ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ τῆς πίστεως, ἡ κλῆσις αὐτοῦ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἡ σοφία τῶν δικαιωμάτων, αἱ ἐντολαὶ τῆς διδαχῆς– αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν προφητεύων, αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικῶν, τοὺς τῷ θανάτῳ δεδου λωμένους ἀνοίγων
ἡμῖν τὴν θύραν τοῦ ναοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν στόμα, μετάνοιαν διδοὺς ἡμῖν, εἰσάγει εἰς τὸν ἄφθαρτον ναό (16.9)

I think we get the point.

Vorkosigan

Thanks.

stephan huller

I guess the next question would be - everyone seems to agree the ho estin is indicative of the uniqueness of the gospel writer. Some say it is an Aramaism others a Latinism. Would everyone agree that this and other features of the gospel writer is unusual or noteworthy? Could it however represent the hand of an editor who rewrote or edited the gospels, Justin, Clement, Barnabas and Ignatius? Could it be the first proof toward establishing Irenaeus as the master editor of early Christian literature?

tanya

No, at this point, our text of "Irenaeus" is fundamentally not credible. One cannot construct "proofs" with materials which, even cursory examination reveals, are inadequate to draw firm conclusions.

Duvduv

And is that the "Irenaeus" of the mid-2nd century or whoever added into his writings most likely in the 4th century??
As I have mentioned before, it is virtually impossible for there to emerge such a neat clean Christianity with all epistles and gospels a mere 40 years in the same city of Rome after Justin wrote about Christianity without the slightest mention of gospel stories, names, epistles or "Paul."

There were possibly 2 "Irenaeuses" or more likely ONE who wrote in the 4th century. I would not be at all surprised that books and texts were backdated to long-ago periods to reinforce the orthodox "apostolic" tradition.

stephan huller

But clearly at least some of the Latinisms checked so far (I am very busy) made their way to Origen' citation of Mark. Origen was a real person. There are just too many citations here to argue that someone went through and added things to all the references here. They have to be organic. So by the third century the Latinisms were in Mark. Since Justin's writings have the references too we have to suppose:

1. Mark made was the source of the Latinisms
2. some later editor made the references

If these Latinisms are unique in Greek literature outside of the New Testament then it would stand to reason that the existence of these Latinisms in the writings of the Church Fathers presupposes that one of them is guilty. So then we move down to:

a) Justin
b) Irenaeus

Since (i) Irenaeus is 'more real' than Justin (i.e. more people seem to have befriended him) and (ii) Irenaeus cites Justin and reused his material and (iii) Irenaeus knows and uses all the other material and (iv) writes in a Latinized Greek style of writing anyway I think he is the more likely candidate.

spin

It would be nice if you supplied exact quotes!

The two examples from Magnesians shows that there is some equivocation regarding ο εστιν. It's not simply a matter of every example of the two words together, but where they function as quod est does, ie as "i.e." does in English. The examples in Magnesians seem to me to be part of ordinary Greek relative clauses, as do those in Trallians.

I don't know what you are referring to as Dialogue 2, but the ο εστιν there does not function as quod est does.

Barnabas 15:8 is a simple relative clause, while 16:9 appears to be a quod est, equating the door of the temple with the mouth.

I don't think I'm being arbitrary, but there seem to be few appropriate examples of ο εστιν above.

stephan huller

I am interested in the Latinism but want to have it explained why they can't be secondary (eating Mexican food)

spin

I don't understand "why they can't be secondary".

[T2]Mark 3:17 and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder:
ονοματα βοανεργες ο εστιν υιοι βροντης

Mark 5:41 And taking the child by the hand, he saith unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise.
ταλιθα κουμι ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον το κορασιον [σοι λεγω] εγειραι

Mark 7:11 but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given [to God];
κορβαν ο εστιν δωρον

Mark 7:34 and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
εφφαθα ο εστιν διανοιχθητι

Mark 12:42 And there came a poor widow, and she cast in two leptas, that is a quadrans.
λεπτα δυο ο εστιν κοδραντης

Mark 15:16 And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.
της αυλης ο εστιν πραιτωριον

Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
γολγοθα τοπον ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον κρανιου τοπος

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
ελωι ελωι λαμμα σαβαχθανι ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον ο θεος μου ο θεος μου εις τι με εγκατελιπες

Mark 15:42 And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
παρασκευη ο εστιν προσαββατον[/T2]

All the examples in Mark are plain. They give rewordings or translations ("c'est-à-dire") for what precedes the ο εστιν, not further information so that the reader understands what is meant by the preceding item.

But look at Smyrneans 5:

[T2]until they repent and return to the passion, which is our resurrection.
μέχρις οὗ μετανοήσωσιν εἰς τὸ πάθος, ὅ ἐστιν ἡμῶν ἀνάστασι[/T2]
This is not simply clarifying the passion for the reader but developing the thought. But take a look at Trall. 8:

[T2]ἐν πίστει, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ[/T2]
That's a little close, in that it could go either way. I think it's developing the idea in each case.

Adam

Stephan is telling you, spin, that they are secondary, and here you come around to agreeing with him. 'That is", you now agree with me. (But of course you would never admit that to me.)