JW:
Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") indicates that in his time much of the competition for the orthodox version(s) of Jesus are competitors who only use a single Gospel:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm
7. Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,— [principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.
Going through
The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching the first controversial Textual issue I see is:
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 10)
5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"
Steps in analysis of the relationship between Irenaeus' claimed text and the orthodox text:
1) Determine the likely original text = Here Textual Criticism says that "the son of God" is likely an addition:
Mark 1:1
2) Determine the orthodox text = One of the most important assertions of orthodox Christianity is that Jesus was the son of God.
3) Determine the likely original Irenaeus:
External:
Mixed evidence here. The one Greek witness has "The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet". There is no "the son of God" but there is no "Jesus Christ" either. The champion of the offending phrase as original, Wasserman, amazingly takes this omission as evidence of originality claiming that Irenaeus omits "the son of God" due to abbreviating. But the lack of "the son of God" in this phrase can only be evidence of the lack of "the son of God" in this phrase. Similarly, the fellow lack of "Jesus Christ" here can only be evidence of the lack of "Jesus Christ" in the original, which by the way, would agree with the only known significant author before "Mark" (author), Paul.
On the other hand the Latin evidence has "the son of God". Everyone would agree in general that for Patristics in general and specifically, Irenaeus, translations from Greek to Latin showed movement to orthodox readings. So we have primary evidence here that Greek Irenaeus was edited in Latin to "the son of God". We have secondary evidence (Latin) that the offending phrase is original. Add to this that there is no Greek evidence for the offending phrase in the first 4 centuries.
Internal:
Context = Irenaeus has given a context of competing over GMark with a specific group and a specific issue:
Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.
Does the inclusion of the offending phrase "the son of God" fit the context? Is it necessary for the context? The excerpt:
5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias," Luke 1:17 "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work.
Irenaeus' starting conclusion = Jesus and Christ were not separate entities.
How does the excerpt support the conclusion?:
Irenaeus' own analysis of his quote repeatedly says that what it supports is another major contention of his, in competition with Marcion over GLuke (as opposed to GMark), that the beginning of GMark supports Jesus and the God of The Jewish Bible as being on the same side (so to speak). Irenaeus' has no analysis here commenting on how the offending phrase "the son of God" supports Jesus and Christ as not being separate entities. The phrase itself supports Jesus and Christ not being separate entities as the combination is referred to as the son of God. But again, there is no analysis claiming this, repeated analysis claims something else. Since "the son of God" is not referred to in Irenaeus' related analysis here and it would be exactly what he needs to try and contradict his competition for GMark who (accurately) separate Jesus from Christ in GMark, this suggests that Irenaeus' was either unaware of "the son of God" here or it did not yet exist.
Conclusion for 3) = As the External and Internal evidence both favor "the son of God" as not original to Irenaeus, the conclusion is that
"the son of God" is not original to Irenaeus. But it was added to Irenaeus by Patristics.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
