Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Modern art leans from textual criticism

Anthea Hamilton's work combines surrealism, comedy and uncompromising sexual imagery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36274589

JP Holding & The Leprechaun

I was complimenting your detective work . Modern textual criticism illuminates the hidden secrets of Mosaic literature .
Yes , Mark 1.1 , son of god, is an addition to show that Jesus was a regular guy as in
4:22 You must say to Pharaoh, 'This is what God says: Israel is My son, My firstborn.

JW:
At my blog I've completed the most important arguments for 1:1 as addition:

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.

In summary it is the combination of The Difficult Reading Principle and the early Greek Patristic evidence with an emphasis on the early Greek Patristic evidence as what The Difficult Reading Principle favors is obvious. What follows illustrates that the early Greek Patristic evidence is not merely dominant for Addition but unanimous and as a bonus also provides some evidence for the key Textual criticism criterion of Change of Direction: [through 4th century]

Name	C. Date	"Son of God" useful to argument	Commentary
Tatian	170	-	-
Irenaeus	190	Yes	There is evidence that a different verse in Latin supports Original. Evidence that Irenaeus was edited in Latin to support Original but not as good as evidence if the same verse was changed in the Latin.
Origen	240	-	Probably the outstanding Textual Critic of the early Church
Serapion	350	-	-
Basil	363	Yes	-
Cyril	370	Yes	-
Epiphanius	378	Yes	-
Asterius	385	Yes	-
Severian	390	-	While most manuscripts lack the offending phrase, two include it. Direct evidence of change from Addition to Original.

Joseph

You Might Be An Antisemite

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
At my blog I've completed the most important arguments for 1:1 as addition:

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.

I am happy to see that you tend to regard Mark 1.1-3 in their entirety as suspect. I have been suspicious of them for a while.

.
Recent advocates of the longer beginning built their cases on two main arguments:

- external evidence of mss support and
- the plausibility of an accidental omission of "son of god"

Most scholars agree that an assumed omission is plausible because the majority of scribes used nomina sacra for "Jesus Christ" and "son of god" with the same ending so that a scribe writing the four letters of „Jesus Christ“ ( Ι Υ Χ Υ) could jump easily over the next four letters of "son of God" ( Υ Υ Θ Υ). Joe and Ben have already discussed it in this thread.


But there is a little problem. The majority of the mss does not attest the reading "son of god", but the reading "son of the god".

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‭א* Θ 28c 530 582* 820* 1021 1436 1555* 1692 2430 2533 l2211 (syrpal τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) copsa(ms) arm geo1 Origengr Origenlat Victorinus-Pettau Asterius Serapion Titus-Bostra Basil Cyril-Jerusalem Severian Jerome3/6 Hesychius WHtext Rivmg NM

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ] ‭א1 B D L W 732 1602 2427 Diatessaronp WHmg (NA [υἱοῦ θεοῦ])

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ] A E F Gsupp H K Δ Π Σ f1 f13 33 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect eth geo2 slav ς

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ or Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ] ita itaur itb itc itd itf itff2 itl itq itr1 vg syrp syrh copsa(mss) copbo goth Irenaeuslat2/3 Faustus-Milevis Ambrose Chromatius Jerome3/6 Augustine [NR] CEI ND Rivtext Dio TILC Nv

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ κυρίου] 1241

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ] 055 pc

Ἰησοῦ] 28*

omit] Irenaeusgr Irenaeuslat1/3 Epiphanius

Naturally, there is no theological difference between „son of god“ and „son of the god“, but in the latter variant the assumed accidental omission is not plausible because the text would be


Besides verse 1:1 and verse 16:19 (LE) the word „God“ occurs 47 times in GMark, 43 times with the definite article and 4 times without an article. Therefore the probality is 90 percent that Mark would have written „son of the god“ instead of „son of god“. But as I said, in this case the assumed accidental omission is not plausible. (There could be some discussions about minor variants and a deliberate use here and there, but the overall picture would not change.)

God without an article

God with the definite article

Mk 10:27, Mk 11:22, Mk 12:27, Mk 15:39

Mk 1:14, Mk 1:15, Mk 1:24, Mk 2:7, Mk 2:12, Mk 2:26, Mk 3:11, Mk 3:35, Mk 4:11, Mk 4:26, Mk 4:30, Mk 5:7, Mk 5:7, Mk 7:8, Mk 7:9, Mk 7:13, Mk 8:33, Mk 9:1, Mk 9:47, Mk 10:9, Mk 10:14, Mk 10:15, Mk 10:18, Mk 10:23, Mk 10:24, Mk 10:25, Mk 10:27, Mk 12:14, Mk 12:17, Mk 12:17, Mk 12:24, Mk 12:26, Mk 12:26, Mk 12:26, Mk 12:26, Mk 12:29, Mk 12:30, Mk 12:34, Mk 13:19, Mk 14:25, Mk 15:34, Mk 15:34, Mk 15:43

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:04 amBesides verse 1:1 and verse 16:19 (LE) the word „God“ occurs 47 times in GMark, 43 times with the definite article and 4 times without an article. Therefore the probality is 90 percent that Mark would have written „son of the god“ instead of „son of god“. But as I said, in this case the assumed accidental omission is not plausible. (There could be some discussions about minor variants and a deliberate use here and there, but the overall picture would not change.)

Good points overall, but I suspect that what leads many critics to regard the definite article as secondary here is that impressive combination of witnesses for its absence: B, D, L, W, and the first corrector of א. Also, it is not only Mark who generally uses the definite article with God; the tendency seems fairly widespread; thus I imagine a textual critic would deem it intrinsically probable that an instance without it would be susceptible to it being added, as seems to have happened, for instance, in Mark 10.27; 11.22; 12.27 (three out of the four instances!).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Evt6As72m4

JW:
Peter Head is probably the top Christian Bible Scholar at Evangelical
Textual Criticism. Therefore his scholarship is less jewgoistic than his fellows (which explains his struggling to get a professorship anywhere). There's not a whole lot of incentive for a self-proclaimed evangelical Bible scholar to point out/argue that "son of God" is likely added so apparently Head wrote the article having a lot of free time waiting for a decent teaching position:

A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1 ‘The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’

The emphasis of the article points out that the early Patristic evidence for addition is unanimous/near unanimous. Since the External evidence then either actually favors addition or at least makes it a serious candidate, its combination with The Difficult Reading Principle makes the Textual Criticism issue uninteresting.

What is interesting is that two of the Evangelical operators at that Blog have relatively recently written A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (Resources for Biblical Study Book 80) which goes against the current trend of Textual Criticism:

• 1) By increasing the weight of Manuscript evidence.
  
  2) By decreasing the weight of Internal evidence.

The cold heart of the CBGM is to weight manuscripts based on their agreement or disagreement for the issue in question with manuscripts that they tend to agree with on an overall basis. The key theory is to discount manuscripts that disagree on the issue in question with manuscript families they tend to agree with overall. The potential logic is there as in general a member of a group that shares overall similarities with the group but has a specific difference is more likely to have experienced a change than the group in total. The specific problem though is we have extremely few extant quality Manuscripts to get any meaningful statistics just from Manuscript relationships, and more specifically The Difficult Reading Principle actually makes the opposite conclusion, the unusual reading in the related group is more likely to be original as there is a strong inverse relationship between Degree of Difficulty and number of Manuscripts supporting it. Interestingly, CBGM uses 1:1 as a case study and concludes that "son of God" should be moved from uncertain to text. The whole thing just looks like Apologetics to me. Create a real formula that sounds scholarly/complicated that supports the conclusion you already want.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

JW:

Style as a category of Internal evidence. Exorcising 1:1, we have the following identifications of Jesus as the son of God in GMark:

https://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark

Mark 1:11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.


Mark 3:11 And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.


Mark 5:7 and crying out with a loud voice, he saith, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, torment me not.


Mark 9:7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.


Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.


Note that all of the identifications are via narrative. The only one that would be via editorial would be the disputed 1:1. Also note that all the above have a spiritual source (Heaven, demons) until Jesus is crucified. After he is crucified there is finally a human source. Think Paul who never witnessed Jesus as son of God based on human sources but based on supposed (imaginary) sources witnessed Jesus as son of God after the supposed crucifixion.


Joseph

https://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com