Originally Posted by Stuart

You are wrong, the original lacked τοῦ Θεοῦ. The UBS brackets the words because they are missing from א* Θ 28-corr, which combined with internal evidence argues for their absence as well. There is no good reason to remove them, no possible argument for fatigue with the very first sentence. But there would be strong reason for scribes to add the words to clarify that Jesus Christ is the son of God, consistent with creed throughout the NT. That the omission barely survived in any manuscripts speaks to the power of the creed in orthodoxy.

Metzger says: "... yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets."

Originally Posted by Stuart

However, evidence is stronger for the shorter reading when considering Marcion.

When reconstructing the various Marcionite texts, frequently when examining the witnesses to the text, one discovers that τοῦ Θεοῦ or its equivalents are missing from Marcion. And this suggests that the words were added to clarify the relationship between Christ and God, to clarify in many instances a dependent status (ironically such readings buttressed the later position of orthodox "heretics" leading to the Arian controversies). Here is a partial list of such "omissions" in Marcion:

Galatians 1:1 καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς
(AM 5.1.3, Ipse se, inquit, apostolum est professus et quidem non ab hominibus nec per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum.)
Galatians 4:6 ὁ θεὸς and τοῦ υἱοῦ
(AM 5.4.4, misit spiritum suum in corda nostra, clamantem: Abba, pater.
note, I disagree with Calbeaux about Tertullian "being loose" with his quote)
1 Corinthians 2:14 τοῦ θεοῦ
(AM 2.2.6 Quodsi a primordio homo animalis, non recipiens quae sunt spiritus; reading – τοῦ θεοῦ with Clement Stromata V 25.5; VI 166.3; some mss support)
1 Corinthians 3:17 ὁ θεός
(Tertullian AM 5.6.12 Quodsi templum Dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur, utique a Deo templi. It’s hard to imagine Tertullian would pass up the chance to point out that Marcion’s God is the destroyer here, unless the words were not there to make the point.)
1 Corinthians 6:14 θεὸς καὶ
(AM 5.7.4 Qui dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit "
compare 2 Corinthians 4:14 εἰ δότες ὅτι ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς σὺν Ἰησοῦν ἐγερεῖ
compare Marcion Galatians 1:1 ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτόν ἐκ νεκρῶν)
2 Corinthians 1:3 καὶ πατὴρ
(AM 5.11.1 benedictus tamen deus domini nostri Iesu Christi, reading – et Pater / καὶ πατὴρ)
2 Corinthians 2:15 – τῷ θεῷ
(DA 2.15 Reads – τῷ θεῷ with K.)
2 Corinthians 4:6 read αὐτοῦ for τοῦ θεοῦ
(Support: p46 C D* F G 326 1837
Evidence: DA 2.19 (Adamantius)
ὁ θεὸς, ὁ εἰπὼν ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψαι, ὃς ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ
Deus, qui dixit de tenebris lucem fulgere, illuminauit in cordibus uestris lucem scientiae gloriae eius in persona Christi
Tertullian AM 5.11.11 Quoniam Deus, qui dixit ex tenebris lucem lucescere, reluxit in cordibus nostris ad illuminationem agnitionis suae in persona Christi)
Romans 1:18 θεοῦ
(AM 5.13.2 'Quoniam et iram dicit revelari de caelo super impietatem et iniustitiam hominum qui veritatem in iniustitia detineant')
Romans 3:19 τῷ θεῷ
(weak case AM 5.13.11 is paraphrasing)

Note, I am only up to 2 Corinthians 11:2 in my reconstruction, so there are undoubtedly other examples

There are two prevalent themes in the missing "God" or "Father" in the Marcionite text, which are clarified in the Catholic. First is the resurrection, the proto-Orthodox position is very clear that God the Father took action to raise Christ, while the Marcionite position appears to be he raised himself, there was no need for the Father to intervene. The Marcionites simply thought Chrisy could do that, they were not making a statement about the relationship of Jesus to God. The other prevalent theme has to do with judgement and wrath, here the Orthodox writer wanted to make it clear that God the father judged and meted punishments as well as rewards. Obviously the Marcionites held that the Jewish God (Angel) was the one who judged, the high God of Christ only loved and could never bring judgment.

The adjustment to Mark 1:1 seems to be early during the era when the Marcionite and Gnostic sects were still strong, so such an adjustment to clarify the relationship would be on scribes minds.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Your analysis of Marcion's text is very interesting but I'm not sure that it really helps establish the original text of Mark (Even if one accepts that Marcion's text is always original which I don't) . Unless one can show that the use of 'Son of God' in Mark 1:1 is contrary to normal Markan usage, I hesitantly think that one should go by the external evidence here.

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by Stuart

Andrew,

א is Alexandrian, and one of the primary witnesses for Mark. When combined with the Caesarian it makes a powerful statement.

The question still is, what would lead a scribe in two unrelated text types to remove the words? What would compel them?

- Stuart

Originally Posted by Stuart

The Orthodox adjustments have common themes, which are readily apparent in the Pastoral layers. And between the Marcionite and Orthordox, there are significant vocabulary differences. These differences are the clinchers for me that Marcion was earlier.

The other clincher has to do with the church structures described by Marcion's Paul. It is a smaller organization without elders (word never occurs in Marcion), without permanent local administration, and unable to make decisions locally, having to defer to the "great leader."

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I don't think 'elder' as church official occurs in the Paulines other than in the Pastorals. Marcion did not have the Pastorals in his canon so Marcion's Paul would not make use of the word.

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

א only reads the short reading in its very first version it seems to have been corrected to the long reading almost immediately.

This is clearly a geographically Alexandrian reading but the first hand of א , when disagreeing both with its immediate corrector and with Vaticanus, is not a good representative of what Westcott & Hort called (question begging) the 'Neutral' text, the accurate Alexandrian tradition.

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by Stuart

Corrector 1 is from the 4th century, "nearly contemporary" which is not necessarily immediately, it means less than 50 years. But lets say its corrected within a decade or so.

What text was it compared to so that a change should be made?

If you wish to claim it was omitted due to similar NS endings by a single progenitor that was common to Caesarean and Sinaiticus ancestors, then you are pushing this mistake back very likely into the 2nd century.

If the mistake is independent, then you have to show a pattern of similar mistakes by Sinaiticus and similar "immediate" corrections. That you have not done.

You need to be careful when throwing out leading words like "immediately" when speaking in archeological time frames, especially in a case here where you seem to imply the very same author recognized the mistake and corrected it right away - a fact far from established.

Originally Posted by Stuart

However, evidence is stronger for the shorter reading when considering Marcion.

When reconstructing the various Marcionite texts, frequently when examining the witnesses to the text, one discovers that τοῦ Θεοῦ or its equivalents are missing from Marcion. And this suggests that the words were added to clarify the relationship between Christ and God, to clarify in many instances a dependent status (ironically such readings buttressed the later position of orthodox "heretics" leading to the Arian controversies). Here is a partial list of such "omissions" in Marcion: