The Role of Transcriptional

Probability in the Text-Critical

D eb a te on Mark 1:1

MAXBOTNER
University of St. Andrews
St. Andrews, UK KY16 9HJ

Abstract: Among the text-critieal issues perennially debated is the question o f

whether (Son o f God) belongs in Mark 1:1. Due to the nature o f the evi-
dence, the category oftranscriptionalprobabilityhdiS played a critical, if not decisive,
role. In fact, for some advocates o f the shorter reading (lacking ' ), transcrip-
tional probability has proven to be the decisive factor in the debate. In this article, I
offer a summary o f the two primary reasons why advocates o f the shorter reading
believe that transcriptional probability is strongly in their favor: (1) the nature and
location ofthe putative scribal omission; and (2) the theological motivation for scribal
insertion. I then proceed to demonstrate why neither o f these arguments is as strong
as it initially appears. Pirst, I adduce sufficient evidence to warrant the dausibility o f
scribal omission o f Son ofG od in Mark 1:1. Second, I examine the function ofMark
1:1 in patristic citations. The evidence collated from these sources suggests that the
presence or absence o f had very little significance for early readers ofth e
S c o n d Gospel. Thus, it is less certain that a scribe would be highly motivated toinsert
Son ofG od at the end ofM ark 1:1. The overall proposal I offer is rather modest; given
the state o fth e evidence, I submit that transcriptional probability should not be the
decisive criterion in the text-critical debate on Mark 1:1.

K ey Words: Son o f God Mark 1:1 patristic citations text criticism transcrip-
tional probability scribal habits nomina sacra

And since Mark has told the reader in 1:1 that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son ofG od,
the reader can rest assured that this understanding ofJesus will have the sanction o f
G od in M arks story and hence be the normative understanding.
Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology o fM a rk s Gospel, 57 (emphasis added)

F o r m o s t s o h o l a r s , the text-critical debate surrounding Mark 1:1 comes

down to a simple question: Does Son o fG o d (' ) belong in the text, or

467
 468 THE CATHOLI BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 2015 ,77
not?1While exegetes will no doubt differ on the significance ofthis question, Jack
Dean Kingsburys comment is at least suggestive o f the impact ones decision
might have.^ Indeed, if Mark 1:1 presents the normative understanding^ o f
Jesus identity, then it makes a significant difference what the text includes. Should
the text critic elect to excise from Mark 1:1, he or she may be altering
the authors dramatic announcement o f a major theme for foe entire work that
follows.* The sheer volume o f studies devoted to this very issue indicates that its
relevance for foe disciplines o f textual criticism and Marcan exegesis continues
unabated.^

1Sume have argued that Marks epening constitutes a later addition. For example, N. Clayton
Croy argues that the texts stable form is foe work 01a redactor {The Mutilation ofM arks Gospel
[Nashville: Abingdon, 2003] 115-24). The evidence, however, does not justify foe claim on this
point, see Tommy Wasserman, The Son ofGod Was in foe Beginning (Mark\ : \ ) JTS62 (2011)
20-50, esp. 22-23. The proposal that Marks opening eonstitutes a secondary addition is not unique
to Croy; for example, j. K. Elliot has argued that not just Mark 1:1 but also 1:1-3 is a later addition
(Mark 1.1 -3 -A Eater Addition to foe Gospel? 46 [2000] 584-88). As with Croys proposal,
Elliots lacks sufficient evidence.
2 The location of in Mark 1:1 has featured in recent studies on foe Gospel of Mark
and foe Roman Empire. For example, Craig Evans has argued that foe incipit of Marks Gospel
represents a bold challenge to Caesar and his empire (The Beginning of Good News and foe
Fulfill^rtofScriptureinthe Gospel ofMark, in Hearing the OldTestament in the New Testament
[ed. Stanley E. Forter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006] 83-100). If were not in foe text,
this would seriously weaken his argument.
3 Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology ofM arks Gospel (Fhiladelphia: Fortress, 1983) 57.
4 Eldon Jay Epp, Textual Criticism in foe Exegesis of foe New Testament, with an Excursus
on Canon, in Handbookto Exegesis oftheNew Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; NTTS 25; Eeiden:
Brill, 1997) 47.
5The following studies are a representative selection: Jan Slomp, Are foe Words Son of
Godin Mark 1.1 Original? BT2% (1977) 143-50; Gerhard Arnold, Mk 1.1 und Eroffnungswend-
ungen in griechischen und lateinischen Schriften, ZNW68 (1977) 123-27 Alexander Globe, The
Caesarean Omission of the Phrase Son ofGod in Mark 1:1, HTR 75 (1982) 209-18, esp. 215-16;
Peter Head, A Text-Critical Study ofMark 1.1: The Beginning of foe Gospel of Jesus Christ,
NTS 37 (1991) 621-29 Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of Mark in foe Hands of the Orthodox, in
Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor o f Karlfried Froehlich on His
Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Mark s. Burrows and Paul Rorem; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 19-31
idem, The Orthodox Corruption ofScripture: The Effect ofEarly Christological Controversies
the Text ofthe New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Adela Yarbro Collins,
Establishing foe Text: Mark 1:1, in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and
Situational Contexts (ed. Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm; Oslo: Scandinavian University Press,
1995) 111-27; Elliot, Mark 1.1-3; Croy, Mutilation ofM arks Gospel; and Wasserman, Son of
God. Critical editions of foe Greek NT are divided. The following is only a partial list:
is omitted inTischendorf8 (1869), BFBS2 (1958), NA241960,1963 ) 25 and ),the SBEGNT(2010);
bracketed in von Soden1913 ) ), NA261979-2012 )28 and ),UBS^5 (1966-2014); and included in
Souter11947 ,1910) 2), Vogels1 (1922), Merk1 (1933), and Bover1 (1943). Additional information
can be found in Heinrieh Greeven and Eberhard Gftng, Textkritik des Markusevangeliums
(Theologie: Forschung und Wissenschaft 11; Munster: LIT, 2003) 41-46. The receut UBS5 (ed.
Barbara Aland et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014] 116) maintains foe C rating of
 THE TEXT-CRITICAL DEBATE ON MARK 1:1 469

Throughout the ebbs and flows o f the text-eritieal debate, the role o f transcrip-
tional probability has surfaced as particularly important. The reason for this is
easily appreciated once the evidence is laid out. As suggested at the outset, most
scholars continue to explain the disparate readings^ ofMark l i l a s variants on two
readings:

1. Shorter Reading: ( * 28e 582*

820* 1555* sams arm geo1 Orgf lat)

2. Longer Reading: () ()
(1 A D L W 582e 820e 1555e vg sy lr lat)

The external evidence suggests that, although the shorter reading has early and
widespread attestation, the longer reading is to be preferred.^ When one considers
the internal evidence, however, matters become more convoluted. In particular,
when one moves to account for the causation o f the variant reading, the question
What is a scribe more likely to do? becomes significant. Indeed, for recent advo-
cates o f the shorter reading such as ?eter Head and Bart Erhman, it becomes
decisive.
For Head, Ehrman, and others who have followed their line o f reasoning,
there are primarily two arguments thatjustify assigning transcriptional probability
decisive weight. These can be summarized as follows:

Argument 1: The type o f error required to sustain the longer reading, namely,
the omission o f the nomine sacra at the outset o f a new Gospel, is highly
implausible. It is unthinkable that a scribe could be so careless.9

former edilions; for foe eommittees explanation, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on
Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament
(Fourth rev. ed.) (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellsehaft, 1994) 62.
6 For a 1 list of variants, see Croy, Mutilation ofMark's Gospel, 115-16.
Wasserman, Son of God, 22-41. Advocates of foe shorter reading would likely agree.
For example, Head writes, If foe two readings with Son of God [foe arthrous and anarthrous] are
taken together there is no doubt that in terms ofmanuscript evidence and geographical distribution
it is superior (Text-Critical Study, 623; italics mine). Heads caveat concerning Greek patristic
witnesses (p. 626) is based on an inferior citation oflrenaeus (Haer. 3.11.8). Older editions (e.g.,
w. Wigan Harveys Sanctilrenaei [2 vols.; Cambridge: TypisAcademicis,1857])citedEfaer. 3.11.8
as a witness for foe short reading; however, foe Sources chrtiennes edition offers foe better reading:
, np0 (pr\xr\//lnitium Euangelii, quemadmodum
scriptus est in Esaiapropheta (SC 211:166). It is likely that Irenaeus truncated foe text form he is
a witness to in Haer. 3.11.8 (see my n. 31 below). An exception may be Ehrman (Orthodox Cor-
ruption, 72), who thinks the shorter reading boasts two of foe three best Alexandrian witnesses.
8In this article, I deal only with transcriptional probability. Intrinsic evidence, while not
entirely unimportant, has been twisted in various directions; compare, for example, Head (Text-
Critical Study, 627) with Wasserman (Son of God, 41-44).
9Slomp, Are foe Words? 148 Head, Text-Critical Study, 628 Ehrman, Orthodox Cor-
ruption, 73 Yarbro Collins, Establishing foe Text, 116-17.
 470 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 15 7 7 ,2

Argument 2\ While there is no eonceivable reason for a scribe to have omitted

' , he or she would have been theologically motivated to add it. This,
in turn, makes the shorter reading harder and, therefore, referable.

Prima facie, both arguments appear strong. In fact, if they are deemed valid, then
most would probably concede that the shorter reading is preferable. Recently,
however, Tommy Wasserman has demonstrated that there are serious issues with
the first argument.^ The question may legitimately be asked. Are there issues with
the secon d as well?
The aim o f this article is to apply additional scrutiny to both the arguments
listed above. Since Wasserman has already addressed the first, I will concentrate
primarily on the second. To the best ofm y knowledge, no one has seriously looked
at the question o f whether early readers would deem the presence or absence o f
' theologically significant. My overall proposal is rather modest. If it can
be shown that arguments 1 and 2 do not hold up in light o f the evidence, then I
would argue that transcriptional probability cannot bear the burden that has been
laid on it by recent advocates ofthe shorter reading. It should not, in other words,
function as the decisive factor in settling the debate.

II. Argument 1: The Nature and Location ofthe Omission

It should strike us as somewhat odd that the kind o f careless mistake alleged to have
occurred here, the omission o f two rather important words, should have happened
precisely where it d o e s-w ith in the first six words ofth e beginning o fa book.
- B a r t Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption ofScripture, 73

Marks manuscript tradition offers several suggestions for determining the

plausibility o f scribal omission o f ' in Mark 1:1. One ofthe witnesses to
the shorter reading is the minuscule 28c: ^
(). This text was corrected from its initial reading:
().12All agree that the exemplar 0f2 8 attests to the shorter reading; however, not
all are willing to consider the implications. Here it would seem that we have a
direct analogy to the relationship between *and ^.^ As is well known, Codex

This argument is nt new; see C. Tischendorf, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece (8th ed.;
Leipzig: Giesecke Devrient, 1869) 215. Ehrmans approach is novel in that he provides a specific
reason the scribal addition, namely, the need to obviate an adoptionist reading ofJesus baptism
(Orthodox Corruption, 75).
Wasserman, Son of God, 44-50.
12 Globe, Caesarean Omission, 217.
13 Yarbro Collins, Establishing the Text, 116. Both Head (Text-Critieal Study, 624) and
Ehrman {Orthodox Corruption, 72) cite 28c as a witness to the shorter reading without mentioning
the correction. Wasserman has rightfirlly drawn attention to this lacuna (Son of God, 45).
 THE TEXT-CRITICAL DEBATE ON MARK 1: 471

Sinaiticus originally lacked the nomina sacra (), but was subsequently cor-
rected.i* There is a possibility that this eorreetion took place before foe manuscript
left foe scriptorium, which suggests that its exemplar attested to foe longer read-
ing.15 O f course, one can never be certain; foe point is simply to elucidate the
inconsistency in a position that accepts that a scribe accidentally omitted in 28*,
but rules out foe possibility that was omitted in foe case o f * . At foe very
least, Yarbro Collinss acknowledgment that this parallel weakens the witness o f
*should be co n sid ered .^
There are also a number o f Byzantine manuscripts that omit 0.
Wasserman lists nine Byzantine witnesses for foe shorter reading: 530 582* 820*
1021 1436 1692 2430 2533 Z2211.17 In commenting on foe evidence, he writes:
An examination ofthe textual data in foe 196 test passages shows that these witnesses
(and 1555) are not immediately related to one another, although they all attest to foe
Byzantine text. Henee, // is very likely that the exemplar ofeach ofthem included the
words (in aecordanee with foe Majority Text), but that the phrase was aeei-
dentally omitted by these scribes independently. In some ofth e MSS the mistake was
eoireeted (582 820 1555) in analogy with what I assume has taken plaee in Codex
Sinaiticus.^

ft would beg foe question to assume that all o f these cases are definite omissions
ofuio , but it is hard to imagine that some ofthem are not. The fact that they
are not immediately related to one another, means that we have clear evidence
o f multiple scribal omissions o f .19
Omission o f foe nomina sacra also occurred in foe first words o f other NT
documents. W asse^ an lists several (all occurring in foe genitive):
Codex Augiensis F (010) omits in 2 Cor. 1:1; Codex 489 omits
in foe same verse; foe first hand o f Codex Claromontanus D (06) omits in
Titus L I, which is then corrected; and Codex 206 omits in 1 Fet. 1:1

* The first hand ofSinaitieus was prone to omission due to homoioteleuton; on this point, see
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study ofOrigins (London: Macmillan, 1936) 134.
15 Wasserman, Son of God,46.1 must admit that I am not as confident on this point as
Wasserman appears to be. For foe eorreetional procedures that tool place in Sinaiticus, see Helen
Lake and Krisopp Lake, Codex Siniaticus Petropolitanus: The New Testament, the Epistle ofBarnabas
and the Shepherd o f Hermas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911).
16 Yarbro Collins, Establishing foe Text, 116.
17 Wasserman, Son o f God, 47.
18 Ibid. (my emphasis).
19 The data invalidate foe claim (Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 73; Yarbro Collins, Estab-
lishing foe Text, 119) that Byzantine scribes never omitted . Further, one can no longer
point to 28c and Kc as evidence that all omissions of foe nomina sacra were apparently corrected
very soon after they were made (Yarbro Collins, Establishing foe Text,117).
20 Wasserman, Son of God, 47.
 472 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 77,2015
In addition to W sserm ans list, the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) list^ a number o f
textual issues in the opening line o f the Catholic Epistles.21 There are variants in
Jas 1 : 1 1 Pet 1 : 1 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 1 that I will argue are best explained as
omissions o f the nomina sacra.

The ECM prints the opening words o f James as follows:

. . . . The text is seeure; however, there are some
interesting variations o f the phrase :
1. (945 1359 Did)
2. (vg bo arm aeth)
3. (365 1842 1850)22

The most likely explanation for variant 1 is foe omission ofthe third nomen sacrum
in the genitive chain (). Variant 3 seems to attest to a similar scribal error,
but in reverse ( is omitted). Variant 2 appears to be a case ofscribal addition.
The example o f variants 1 and 3 may be suggestive for foe textual issue in Mark
1:1, since foe genitive chain o f foe nomina sacra is o f similar length.
I skip 1 Pet 1:1 (already noted by Wasserman) and move straight to 2 Pet 1:1.
The printed text reads:
. . . . Minuscule 1845 attests to a reading that lacks
.22 Given that this is a single variant witness, as well as that foe
printed text has early and wide attestation (p 74 04 048 etc.), foe easiest explanation
is that the scribe o f 1845 omitted foe nomina sacra ( ).
Finally, Jude 1 offers a complex range o f variants. It reads as follows:Ioucu
, , ^
. There are three clusters o f variants to con-
sider. The first is a set o f variants on the phrase :

1. (18 025 049 6 104 etc.)

2. (180 1751 1881 syph)
3. (1067

G f the three, only foe third variant is significant for my argument. If one assumes
that a scribe was copying from foe majority text, this would imply that he or she
omitted foe second word ofthe epistle (). In view ofthe wide attestation o f
variant 1, it is also possible that foe scribe read and thus
omitted foe middle word. In either case, foe most likely explanation ofvariant 3 is
foe omission ofthe nomen sacrum (). Explanation for foe other textual issues

21 Bagara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior IV: Catholic
Letters (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013).
22Ibid., 1:2.
^Ibid., 1:204.
24Ibid., 1:404.
 THE TEXT-CRITICAL DEBATE ON LI 473

is fairly straightforward: manuscript 6 excises most likely to keep the

connection o f the definite article with the perfect participle it modifies (
), and a number o f manuscripts omit
(probably on account of^ rab lep sis).^
The data clearly demonstrate that scribes could, on occasion, omit the nomina
sacra in the opening words o f a NT document. It may be true (as a general rule)
that scribes tended to insert the nomina sacra. One should qualify this generaliza-
tion, however, by pointing out that Marks manuscript tradition offers no example
o f scribal addition ofthe title Son ofG od analogous to the type ofaddition required
to sustain the shorter reading.^ The evidence suggests that it would be imprudent
to allow argument 1 to be the decisive point that tips the scales in favor ofth e
shorter reading.

111. Argument 2: The Theological Motivation for the Insertion

It would be illogical and certainly contrary to the entirety ofthe text o f sacred history
[ ]to say that this phrase [ ] would he more likely removed by tempered faith
than inserted by misguided zealous piety.
-T ischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (8th ed., 1869) 215 (my translation)

The quotation above illustrates the longevity o f argument 2 within the domain
o f transcriptional probability. Whereas Tischendorf, and those who followed him,
kept the theological motivation for the insertion rather general (pictate male
sedula), Erhman provides a specific theological motivation, namely, the need to
combat an adoptionist^ reading o f Marks baptismal account (Mark 1:9-11).28
Though Ehrmans thesis has not been universally accepted, it has received marked
approval. For example, D. c. Parker writes:

25 The emanation ofpa[ablepss is offered by Metzger, Textual Commentary, 656.

26 Wasserman has demonstrated that the only legitimate scribal addition o f Son ofGod is a
harmonization in Mark 8:29 ( Son ofGod, 48-49).
27I am using the term adoptionist in the way that Ehrman uses it, that is, to signify a
christology ofthe sort that is attributed to figures such as Theodotus of Byzantium. One should
note, however, that the negative connotations associated with adoptionism, as the phrase is
commonly deployed, may have the unfortunate side effect of distracting our attention from early
Ghristian perspectives on adoptiona positive point of connection between Christ and the
believer see James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons o fG o d : An Exegetical Investigation into the
Background o f in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 2/48 Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992);
and Michael ?eppard, Adopted and Begotten Sons ofGod: ?aul and John on Divine Sonship,
CBQ 73 (2011)92-110.
28 Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 75 see Irenaeus Haer. 1.26.1 3.11.7 HippolytusHaer.
7.33.1-2 Epiphanius Pan. 28.1.1-8,30.14.4 etc. Among the sources, only Irenaeus mentions Mark
{Haer. 3.11.7) see . F. j. Klijn and j. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects
(NovTSup 36 Eeiden: Brill, 1973).
 474 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 2015 ,77
The wrds from heaven in 1.11 (Thou art my beloved son; with thee 1 am well
pleased) are partieularly suseeptible o f the interpretation that only in this aet does
Jesus become Gods son. These problems were dealt with by Matthew and Luke in
their provision o f prefatory material, and by later copyists in their inserting Son /
G o d in verse l ? 9

Conspicuously, Ehrman is the only reference ?arker cites in support o f this asser-
tion. In addition and, indeed, even in spite o f her ambivalence toward Ehrmans
proposal, Yarbro Collins concludes her article on Mark 1:1 with the following:
It is probably not coincidental that the earliest witness for toe longer reading is
Irenaeus, whose major work was written against heresies in toe early Christian move-
ment. It is rather unlikely that these words were omitted by accident. But it is quite
credible that they were added, either out o fp ie ty to combat human an under-
standing ofJesus.30

It appears, then, that Ehrmans argument has registered a marked effect.

In this section, 1 use Ehrmans thesis as a launching point for assessing toe
validity o f the claim that 0 was inserted into Mark 1:1 for theological
reasons (whether general or specific). To do so, 1 examine how citations o f Mark
1:1 fitnction in toe most germane patristic witnesses. Though these witnesses do
not offer a comprehensive picture, they are our most immediate entre to toe proto-
orthodox understanding ofthe opening ofM arks Gospel (outside ofthe canonical
Gospels, o f course). The following questions will be my guide: (1) Are these texts
illustrative o f any marked Tendenz(en)! (2) Do they provide any indications that
toe presence or lack o f /Filii D ei made a theological difference-either
specifically for combating adoptionism, or more generally?

P atristic Citations o fM a rk 1:1

Truly Mark, by toe prophetic spirit which descends upon people from above, began
by saying: The beginning o f the Gospel, just as it has been written in Isaiah, toe
prophet. . .
Irenaeus Haer. 3.11.8 (my translation)

Irenaeus (d. 202) and Origen (d. 253/254) mark toe oldest patristic witnesses
to Mark 1:1. At three points in Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus cites Mark 1:1: two
Latin citations ( 3. 10. 53. 16. 3 )supporting toe longer reading, and one Greek frag-
ment agreeing with toe Latin (3.II.8) that supports neither toe shorter nor toe
longer reading-^* Origen, on toe other hand, uniformly attests to toe shorter reading

29 D. c. Parker, The Living Text ofthe Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997) 145 (my emphasis).
Yarbro Collins, Establishing toe Text, 125 (my emphasis).
31 As previously mentioned, Haer. 3.11.8 attests to neither toe shorter nor toe longer reading.
1 find it most plausible that Irenaeus abbreviated toe longer reading of Mark 1:1, witnessed to in
3.10.5 and 3.16.3. The eitation ofMark 1:1 in Haer. 3.16.3 makes sense only if FiliiDei is present.
Every other text Irenaeus eonneets with Mark 1:1 has toe words Filius Dei (Rom 1:1-4 9:5 Gal
 THE TEXT-CRITICAL DEBATE CN MARK 1:1 475

{Comm. Jo. 1.6. 154 Fr. Eph.\ Cels. 2.4 Comm. Rom. 1.3).32 Examining Irenaeus
and Drigen side by side helps shed light on the (question o f what difference the
presence or absence o f QeoO/Filii D ei made for patristic sources.
Irenaeuss first citation o f Mark 1:1 occurs in an argument concerning the
unity o f the God presented in the Old and New Testaments. His framing argument
for 3.9 is that the God preached in the Gospels is the same God foretold by the
prophets (3.9.1). In 3.9.3, Irenaeus mentions an adoptionist interpretation ofJesus
baptism, but this is in regard to the baptismal account in Matthew. Significantly,
he counters the adoptionist reading by assuming that the Jesus o f Matthews Gos-
pel is Verbum Dei?* Einally, following a string o f proofs from Luke (3.10.1-4),
Irenaeus turns to the opening o f Mark. The rhetorical force o f the citation is that
foe Gospel begins quemadmodum scriptum est inprophetis (3.10.5).34 In this con-
text, Mark 1:1 fimctions as a hinge for the two Testam ents-the voices ofthe holy
prophets (voces prophetarum sanctorum) are seen as confessing foe Father o f
our Lord Jesus Christ (Pater Domini Iesu Christi), while John foe Baptist is
envisioned as coming in foe spirit and virtue o f Elijah (in Spiritu et virtute
Heliae).
In his second citation, Irenaeuss text contains no reference to Jesus what-
soever: , ^ (3.11.8) .3 This
is especially intriguing given what preceded in 3.II.7. Here, Irenaeus points out
that various heretical groups each have a penchant for one o fth e four Gospels.

4:4-5 Col 1:14-15). In addition, I!enaeus introduces his discussion ofthe four Gospels in Haer.
3.11.8 with the following: Et enim Cherubim quadriformia, et formae ipsorum imagines sunt
dispositions Fdii Dei (For the cherubim are also quadriform, and their forms are foe images of foe
dispensation ofthe Son o f God) (SC 211:162 [my translation]). The fact that foe discussion is
introduced with FiliiDei allows him to truncate his citation to accentuate what he sees as foe most
salient feature of Marks opening-its prophetic character.
32 Aside from *, Origen is one ofthe strongest witnesses for foe shorter reading. Irenaeuss
citations ofthe longer reading are earlier (late second century), balancing out foe witness ofOrigen.
33 Non enim Christus tunc descendit in lesum . . sed Verbum Dei . lesus Christus factus
est (For foe Christ did not descend upon Jesus at that time . . but foe Word of God . . . was made
Jesus Christ) (SC 211:108 [my translation]).
34 Quapropter et Marcus, integres et sectator Fetri, initium Euangelicae conscriptionis fecit
sic: Initium Euangelii Iesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in prophetis: .. manifeste
initium Euangelii esse dicens sanctorum ^ophetarum uoees, et eum quem ipsi Dominum et Deum
confessi sunt hunc Fatrem Domini nostri Iesu Christi. . . Quoniam quidem non alium et alium
prophetae adnuntiabant Deum sed unum et eundem, uariis autem significationibus et multis
appellationibus (For fois reason also Mark, foe interpreter and follower of Peter, begins his Gospel
composition thus: the beginning ofthe Gospel ofJesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in
foe prophets: .. clearly it is foe case that foe beginning of foe Gospel quotes foe voices of foe holy
prophets, and that him whom they confess as very Lord and God is foe one whom they confess as
foe Father o f our Lord Jesus Christ.. . . For foe God whom foe prophets are announcing is not one
and another, but one and foe same; however, under various significations and many titles) (SC
211:135-36 [ translation]).
35 SC 211:166.
 476 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 77,2015
T ^ s e who prefer Mark are groups who separate Jesus from Christ {lesum
sparant a Christo)?6 It also seems clear that some o f these groups located the
descent o f Christ into Jesus at the time o f his baptism (1.26.1). What we do not
find, however, is any attempt to argue that adoptionist readings ofMark are negated
by the presence o f in Mark 1:1. Again, Irenaeuss approach is telling.
Rather than refute what he views as erroneous interpretations o f Matthew, Mark,
and John, he appeals to the necessity offour Gospels. Each o f the four (canonical)
Gospels provides a portion o f the full picture o f the Son o f God (
/Filii Dei). Marks contribution to the fourfold witness, as in 3.10.5, seems
to be that the text begins with the prophets.
Irenaeuss final citation is located in proximity to heretical concepts similar
to those m entioned in 3.11 .7. He notes that so m e believe that the man Jesus was
a receptacle o f Christ (receptaculum Christi), who descended on Jesus as a
dove {quasi columbam; 3.16.1).37 As part o f his argument against this view,
Irenaeus links Mark 1:1 with a group o f ?auline citations (Rom 1:1-4 9:5 Gal
4:4-5 Col 1:14-15), allowing Filius D ei to function as a link for these disparate
texts. The fact that Mark 1:1 holds lesus Christus in apposition with Filius Dei
bolsters the case that Jesus and Christ are one and the same (unus et idem)
announced by the prophets (p er prophetas).38 In this instance, it seems fair to
conclude that Irenaeus would not have cited Mark 1:1 iF ilius D ei were not pres-
ent however, one should be wary o f pressing the theological significance o f this
text for his larger argument too far. It is critical to note that in Irenaeuss refutation
o f those who regard Jesus as a receptacle o f Christ he does not seem to have
Mark in mind. This is apparent not only from the mention o f Valentinus (3.16.1)
but also from the fact that he begins his argument for one and the same Jesus by
dealing with John and Matthew. Further, if one pays attention to the content ofthe
Fauline citations, it is clear that Mark 1:1 is operating in a supporting role. That is,
Mark 1:1 contains an additional biblical text evincing that the prophets o f old
proclaimed one and the same Son o f God, Jesus Christ.
Contra Irenaeus, Origen represents a consistent witness to the shorter reading.
In his Commentary on John, he cites Mark on three occasions.3 The first two cita-
tions are located in a section that concerns the relationship between the two Testa-
ments. Origen begins 1.13 by arguing that has its source in Jesus
Christ, just as Mark says: .40 After demon

36 SC 211:158. Those {Qui) harks baek 10 the Cerinthians and others who shared similar
views {Haer. 1.26.1). Irenaeus believes that this group can be corrected if they read it [Marks
Gospel] with a love for the truth (eum amore ueritatis legentes illud corrigi possunt; Haer. 5.11 .?
SC211:160).
37 SC 211:286.
38 SC 211:298.
39 The two citations in 1.13 are more germane for this study. When Mark 1:1-3 is cited in 6.24,
the context is a comparison ofthe minor differences in wording between John and Mark.
* Greek text GCS 10:18. It appears that Origen altered pooh to
 THE TEXT-CRITICAL DEBATE ON MARK 477

strating the apestolie edifice o f the gospel as witnessed by ?aul, he asserts that
is either the entire oldcovenant, ofwhich John (the Baptist)
is a type, or thQfinal aims o fth e old covenant brought about by John.41 Origen
further argues that, on account o f Marks opening (), the heterodox (01
) act illogically when they join the two covenants to two gods.42 For
Origen, the beginning o f Mark is significant because it links Israels Scriptures
with the Gospel.
Contra Celsum 2.4 represents another clear illustration ofOrigens approach
to Marks opening. He refutes the claim that Christians dishonor the law by argu-
ing that the Law and the Frophets are foundational to Christian faith. In the course
o f his argument, Origen cites John 5:46-47 alongside Mark 1:1-3. Marks influence
is manifest in the claim that is connected with Israels
Scriptures.42 This helps bolster his claim that Israels Scriptures are fimdamentally
christotelic.
Thus, there appears to be a consistent theological theme in the two earliest
patristic witnesses to Mark 1:1 (whose texts just so happen to disagree on
v/Filii Dei). Mark 1:1 emerges from both fathers as a text freighted with theo-
logical significance-how ever, not the sort o f s i g f i a n c e that modem interpreters
might expect. Those who have been steeped in the text-critical issue may be sur-
prised to find that it was probably o f little consequence to Irenaeus and Origen.
The fact that Irenaeus can drop the nomina sacra altogether supports this conclu-
sion (Haer. 3.11.8). There are good reasons for this. As we have seen, the most
important function o f Marks opening for both fathers is the link it establishes
between the Gospel and Israels Scriptures. Both use this link to imply an inherent
continuity between the two Testaments. In addition, when one examines the sur-
rounding context o f citations o f Mark 1:1 in Irenaeus and Origen, it is abundantly
clear that both fathers assume, a priori, that Jesus is the Son o f God and eternal
Word. To put it bluntly, neither father really needed Mark 1:1 to contain /
Filii Dei.
Additional citations among the patristic sources evince strong continuity with
the typ e o f approach witnessed in Iren aeu s and Origen. Victorinus o f Pettau

in this instance, possibly to align with ^ in the previous sentence. This fits the normal
pattern of Brigens citation technipues; see Brace Metzger and Bart D. Erhman, The TextoftheNew
Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University
?ress, 2005) 87-88.
41 Origen Comm. Jo. 1.13; GCS 10:18. Origens citation of Mark 1:1 in Comm. Rom. (pre-
served only in Rufinuss Latin) expands upon the relationship between Mark 1:1 and Rom 1:3.
Origen argues that Pauls gospel (the gospel ofGod) is the same gospel as Marks gospel ofiesus
Christ.
42GCS 10:18.
43 Origen Cels. 2.4: [ (he
clearly indicates that the beginning ofthe Gospel is connected to the Jewish writings) (SC 132:291-
92 [my translation]). For Origen, this point is self-evident ().
 478 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 2015 ,77
(d. 304), one o f the few Eatin fathers to ete the shorter reading, elosely follows
Irenaeuss schema and conclusions in Haer. 3.11.8.44 Serapion o f Thmuis (d. 362),
who cites the shorter reading twice, employs an argument 'mAgainsttheManichees
that is similar to the one Origen leveled against Gnostic thought.^ In Man. 25
Serapion uses foe opening ofMark to demonstrate that a rejeetion ofO T prophecy
is a rejection o f the G ospel^ In Man. 37, he combines Marks opening with
Matthews to argue that is . In this instance, Serapion
even cites John 5:46, as did Origen (Cels. 2.4), in close ^ oxim ity to Marks open-
ing.47 Basil o f Caesarea (d. 379) and Cyril o f Jerusalem (d. 386) both cite foe
shorter reading, while Epiphanius ofSalam is (d. 403) contains a citation that sup-
ports neither foe shorter nor the longer reading.4Significantly, all three exploit
Marks connection to foe past via John foe Baptist. Severian o f Gabala (d. 4 0 8 -
425), whose manuscripts attest to both the shorter and foe longer reading, asserts
that Mark speaks about foe Son ofG od to those p rev io u sly untrained by soften-

44Victorinus ofPettau Comm. Apoc. 4.4. While his order is different from that of Irenaeus
(inverting Matthew and Luke), he coneludes his description with a similar focus (Jesus as Verbum
Dei).
45 Alexander Globe (Serapion ofThmuis as Witness to foe Gospel Text Used by Grigen in
Caesarea, NovT26 [1984] 97-127, esp. 97) has demonstrated that Serapions citations agree with
Grigens on sixty of seventy-six (79 percent) possible occasions.
Greek text in Robert p. Casey, ed., Against the Manichees (HTS 15; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1931) 4.
47 Serapion ofThmuis ^an. 37: ' ,
' ' ^0 (Then let foe Jews observe, If you obeyed Moses, you
would obey me, for he wrote about me) (John 5:46 [my translation]). Serapion then makes foe
following connection: ol [0 , <>
(Likewise, let foe Manicheans observe: if you obeyed the Gospel, you would obey foe Law)
(55 [my translation]).
^ Basil Eun. 2.15: ,
' ^ , ,
(Mark makes Johns proclamation foe beginning ofhis Gospel, when saying, The begin-
ning of foe Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah, foe prophet, a voice crying out. . . )
(SC 305:58 [my translation]). Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. ilium. 3.6.1:
, [] - , (He says foe beginning
of foe Gospel of Jesus Christ, next that, John came in foe wilderness preaching) (Greek text in
W. C. Reischl and j. Rupp, eds., Cyrilli Hierosolymarum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia
[2 vols. Munich: Lentem, 1848-60; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1967] 1:72 [my translation]).
Epiphanius Pan. 51.6.4: ,
,
, (Vet, we do not find that Mark speaks
ofthese things; rather he begins his introduction from foe events at foe Jordan saying, foe beginning
of foe Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah, foe prophet, a voice crying out in foe wilderness) (GCS
31:255 [my translation]). Epiphaniuss citation matches Irenaeuss contracted citation in Haer.
3.11.8. While Epiphanius knows o f several figures who consider Jesus a mere man (
; Pan. 51.6.7-8), this topic seems to arise within discussions of Matthew (Pan. 28.1.4-7;
28.5.1).
 THE TEXT-CRITICAL DEBATE ON MARK 1:1 479

ing his l i s t e n e r . H e does so by leading with matters eoneerning the Baptist

( ).50 ?seudo-Vietor ofAntioch says that Mark begins the
Gospel o f the Son o f God from John ( ).51 In commenting on
Psalm 9 LXX,Aserius Ignotus cites the shorter reading to argue that the beginning
o f evangelical preaching marks the telos ofthe law and the prophets {Horn. 18.4).52
To be sure, not all the sources evidence the theological concerns previously
mentioned. Cyril o f Alexandria (d. 444), who cites the longer reading in Iul. 3.330,
marks one o f several exceptions. Cyril ends his citation ofMark 1:1 without con-
tinuing on to mention either the prophet Isaiah/prophets John the Baptist. Marks
opening fonctions not to connect foe Gospel to foe past but rather as an occasion
for elaborating on Christs divinity. Yet, given foe distinct theological trajectory
we have observed in foe sources, it seems fair to regard Cyrils use ofMark l i l a s
anom alous.
Jerome (d. 419/420), whose work attests to both foe shorter and the longer
readings, offers a convenient terminus adquem for this section.^ Jerome cites foe
longer reading twice in Tract. Marc. 1A. In foe first citation, he returns to the
popular quadriform model o fth e Gospels, correlating Mark with the form o f a
lion.^ He points out that John foe Baptist is the voice and foe servant who
precedes foe Lord. In his second citation, which directly follows, Jerome draws
two conclusions: (1) since Jesus is Filius D ei, he is not filius Ioseph; and (2) foe
beginning o fth e gospel marks foe end o fth e law.55 The first inference has no
parallel in foe sources.^ The second, however, fits foe general paradigm that envi-
sions Mark 1:1 a sa natural segue from Israels Scriptures to foe Gospel.^
Erom this brief survey, I believe we have justification to claim that foe
presence absence o f ' /F iliiD ei in Mark 1:1 was not theologically sig-
nificant for foe patristic sources. It is, o f course, possible that a scribe thought

49 The majority of these manuseripts (twelve) attest to the shorter reading; however, the two
that may preserve the best text attest to the longer (Wasserman, Son ofGod, 31-32).
50Severian of Gabala %;//. 5 (PG 63:541c).
51 Greek text in p. Possinus, Catena graecorum partum in evangelium secundum Marcum
(Rome:Typis Barberinis, 1673).
52 Greek text in Marcel Richard, AsteriisophistaecommentarioruminPsalmosquaesupersunt
(SO 16; Oslo: Brogger, 1956) 129.
53 The shorter reading is found twice: Comm. Mai. 3.1; Ep. 57.9. The longer appears in four
places: Comm. Matt. 1.3; Comm. Ezech. LI; and twice in Tract. Marc 1A. Jerome also edited
Victorinuss Commemtary on theApocalypse. While he removed Filii Dei from Victorinuss citation
ofMatt 1:1, he refrained from making any changes to his shorter reading ofMark 1:1 (Wasserman,
Son ofGod, 33-34).
54 See also Jerome Comm. Ezech. 1.1 (on Ezek 1:7).
^ Jerome Tract. MarcAA; S 494:64.
56 Given foe fact that Jerome knew bofo readings, one wonders how much weight he attached
to foe presence 0 Filius Dei in Mark 1:1.
57 Jeromes remaining citations ofMark 1:1 revolve around the issue ofthe composite citation
that Mark attributes to foe prophet Isaiah (Comm. Matt. 1.3; Comm. Mai. 3A;Ep. 57.9).
 480 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 15
2??,

was a theologically necessary valuable addition; however, to mount such

an argument, one would have to proceed w ithout-and, indeed in spite o f-th e s e
sources. Such an argumentwouldbe e s ^ c ^ l y questionable ifone wanted to argue
that the presence o f in Mark 1:1 was necessary to combat a specific
heresy. In this case, one would be using patristic sources to reconstruct certain
heretical beliefs, while at the same time ignoring that these same sources offer no
indication that they deemed the presence or absence o f significant for
combating these beliefs.
The more general argument o f the pious scribal insertion is also liable to
critique. It frames the argument in such a way that ones options are constricted to
a set o ^ n e s s a r i l y limited alternatives: Is the presence o f more pious
than its absence? In framing the question thus, one essentially guarantees that the
shorter will be the harder, and thus the more preferable, reading. But what if early
readers felt no great theological chasm between the two readings? What if, in fact,
this assumption is unnecessarily skewing decisions made on transcriptional prob-
ability? The evidence presented in this section suggests that even if we acknowl-
edge that (in theory) the shorter reading is theologically harder than the longer
reading, the degree to which it is harder is very minimal, if at all quantifiable.
Hence, it would be specious to allow this point any great weight in our critical
judgm ents about Mark 1:1.

IV. C onclusion

The findings o f this article suggest that both arguments 1 and 2 are not nearly
as strong as recent advocates ofthe shorter reading have articulated. The argument
that a scribe would not omit the nomina sacra in the opening verse is challenged
by several factors: (1) toe relationship between 28*/28 and 2) ^*/ )toe group
o f unrelated Byzantine manuscripts with omissions o f ; (3) toe growing
list o f omissions ofthe nomina sacra in toe opening verse o f other NT documents;
and (4) toe lack o f any scribal addition o f Son o f God in Marks manuscript
tradition analogous to toe type o f addition required to sustain toe shorter reading.
The argument that toe shorter reading is theologically harder or, in its more
specific manifestation, that it was ^esum ably problematic for early readers lacks
concrete evidence.
To be sure, toe possibility that a scribe, for that matter, several scribes,
added to toe text o f Mark 1:1 cannot be definitively ruled out. The evi-
dence simply does not allow it. But neither does toe evidence warrant toe conclu-
sion that transcriptional probability speaks strongly in favor o f toe shorter reading.
Rather, its ambiguity suggests that it should not have toe last word in toe debate.


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.