Fantastic Voyage

I must get those books. Clearly Clayton can make a case since Mark reveals Jesus Identity from the opening sentence:

1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

but I must also get Sense And Absence, a mere 142 pages.

Sigh, so much to read, so little time.

Julian

The words 'Son of God' is a late addition and is not attested by early exemplars. It is another scribal addition and, therefore, not by Mark. I do not have an apparatus handy but I believe attestation is strong for its omission.

Julian

S.C.Carlson

The Farrer theory (Mark first, Matt used Mark, and Luke used both Mark and Matt). For excellent discussion of it, by all means read Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q.

Stephen

Fantastic Voyage

Julian,

Whenever you get the free time, either post or send privately your source for that for my own personal notes

S.C.Carlson

The attestation for the omission is not particularly strong--Aleph (first hand), Theta, 28 (corrector), a couple versions and a smattering of patristics--but strong enough to be bracketed as uncertain in the most recent critical text. Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption has a discussion of this.

Croy finds an interesting way to connect the textual uncertainty over Mark 1:1 with that of post-16:8.

Stephen

Julian

Any apparatus should give you that information. I can look it up if you don't have an apparatus and PM it to you. It might have to wait a few days as all my religion books are packed away for a few days until I finish sanding the the new drywall I just put up. Very dusty.

Julian

Edited to add: I see that S.C.Carlson beat me to it. Check out his post. You know, it's funny how Θ has some interesting readings. I got an email from Robert Price the other day regarding Jesus' reply to Pilate where most readings has εγο ειμι but Θ (I am pretty sure it is that ms) has συ ειπας �τι εγο ειμι which reads much more Markan. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Θ.

Julian

Oh yeah, forgot to ask, Stephen, why do you not consider Sinaiticus a particularly strong representation? I would think that it and B were the strongest we have.

Julian

Amaleq13

Here are some earlier threads on the subject for your consideration:

How early is the longer ending of Mark?

Robert Price's Explanation for Abrupt Mark Ending

S.C.Carlson

I was talking about its attestation (external evidence). Codex Sinaiticus (aka Aleph or 01) is indeed a very good manuscript, especially when it agrees with B (Codex Vaticanus). When 01 does not agree with B, B is usually better, depending on how the other witness line up.

In this case, the other witnesses are basically Caesarean: Θ, 28, arm, geo, Origen, but not the better Caesareans such as W and family 1. Both 01 and Θ were present in the same monastery, St. Catherine's, and Θ shows some evidence of being a mixture of 01 and a (mixed) Caesarean base, so it could well be the case that MSS and versions witnesses do not supply independent support for 01's reading here in Mark 1:1. So, in terms of attestation, it is not great.

On the other hand, the internal evidence somewhat favors the omission. Internal evidence has two components: intrinsic (what the author is more likely to have written) and transmissional (what the scribes are more likely to do).

For the intrinsic prong of the inquiry, the evangelist's calling Jesus the "son of God" is certainly consistent with other parts of Mark (e.g. 15:39; cf. 1:11) but that does not help us very much about whether the author would want to also put it in 1:1 (that is, if 1:1 is authorial).

The transmissional prong is a little easier to evaluate: scribes are more apt to add than omit titles for Jesus until an unintentional error is likely. In 1:1, a tired scribe could have been accidentally skipped from one upsilon to another (written as ΑΡΧΗΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟÎ?ΙΥΧΥΥΥΘΥΩΣ.. .), but how tired, Ehrman asks, would scribes be on the very first verse of the gospel?

Julian

I was under the impression that the 'Caesarean' text-type was a controversial topic. The Caesarean idea was mainly instigated by Streeter and more or less undone by Hurtado leaving the whole idea of a 'Caesarean' text type mostly unanswered at this time. Most of my textual criticism materials are somewhat dated so I guess my question is: Is there a concensus on the 'Caesarean' text type? Does it exist or is it merely a mix of other text types? If my memory serves, it seems to have only very few distinctive readings.

It can also be disputed, supposedly, that GMark reads differently form the other gospels (Metzger) although this is disputed (Waltz). I have not read Θ myself so I have no first hand knowledge nor would I be qualified to make such a distinction. I am curious that the v.l. I pointed out back in post #16 does not appear in my GNT4 apparatus. This leaves me unable to ascertain just how different GMark is in Θ.
I disagree on the consistency here. I think the delivery is far too blunt for Mark. Even in the two passages you mentioned it does not come as a narrative statement.
Indeed. Although, I gotta admit, reading uncial script makes my head hurt.

Julian