[Continued from the previous post]
Continuing our investigation about the text of Mark 1:2, let’s turn now to Irenaeus, the earliest evidence for Mark 1:2. Irenaeus had grown up in Asia
Minor (he states in Against
Heresies 3:3:4 that he saw Polycarp
at Smyrna ), and served as bishop in
the city of Lugdunum (now Lyons ),
in Gaul (now France ). He also visited Rome
in 177, when Roman persecution targeted Lugdunum. He wrote the third book of his most famous
work, Against Heresies, in about 184,
which means that his quotations of Mark are from a manuscript earlier than any
known to exist.
A Vulgate copy from the 800s, with "in Isaiah the prophet" in Mark 1:2. |
In Against
Heresies 3:10:5, Irenaeus wrote,
“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, who 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 Elijah, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord;
make straight paths before our God.’”
(The combination of variants in
this citation is interesting, and merits closer study: “Son of
God” is included in verse 1, and “in
the prophets” is read in verse 2; yet “before
you” is not read at the end of verse 2, and the close of the quotation
seems to be conformed to the text of Isaiah 40:3.)
Against the
idea that Irenaeus’ text has been altered here by a copyist of his works, it
should be noticed that Irenaeus, commenting on the passage, did not proceed to say
that one prophet (i.e., Isaiah) thus testified,
but that they (i.e., the prophets)
confessed him as God and Lord, and he made this affirmation as he saw no need
for further comment.
However, in
Against
Heresies 3:11:8, which is
preserved in Greek and Latin, Irenaeus quotes Mark 1:1-2 with “in Isaiah the prophet.” In addition, his brief quotation does not
include the phrase “the Son of God” – Ἀρχὴ
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὡς γέγραπται ἐν Ἡσαΐα τῷ προφήτη. This form of Mark 1:1-2a, excluding “Son of God”
and including “in Isaiah the prophet”
without τῷ before Ἡσαΐα, is rare; it is attested only in Codex Θ and in the
Armenian and Georgian versions, and a few respectably early patristic
compositions, as far as I can tell.
While nothing precludes the idea that Irenaeus possessed the kind of
text displayed in Codex Θ (and in Oxyrhynchus
Papyri LXXVI 5073, a talisman probably made in the late 200s), there is
another possibility: that at this point
Irenaeus was incorporating the contents of an earlier source into his own
composition.
Let’s take
a look at the context of the quotation in Against
Heresies 3:11:8: it arrives as
Irenaeus is defending the idea that there are four, and only four, Gospels.
Just as there are four cherubim around God’s heavenly throne; each angelic
likeness is associated with one of the four Gospels. Using Revelation 4:7, Irenaeus explains that
the Gospel of John corresponds to the confident lion; the Gospel of Luke
corresponds to the ox; the Gospel of Matthew corresponds to the man, and the
Gospel of Mark corresponds to the eagle – this last association being based on
the swiftness of an eagle’s flight and the swiftness with which Mark summarizes
Jesus’ activities, providing a quick overview:
“Mark, on the other hand,
commences with the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying,
‘The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the
prophet,’ – pointing to the winged aspect of the gospel; and on this account he
made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical
character.”
Further along
in Against Heresies, in 3:16:3,
Irenaeus again refers to Mark 1:2. He
specifically quotes from Mark: “Wherefore Mark also says, ‘The beginning of
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the
prophets.’ Knowing one and the same Son
of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets . . . .”
In the two
instances where Irenaeus quotes Mark 1:1-2a with “Son of God” and “in the
prophets,” the adjacent comments from Irenaeus do not give any hint that
his own text has been replaced with something else; his comments interlock with
a text of Mark in which those two readings are in the text. But at the same time, there is no sign of
tampering in the quotation in which Irenaeus fails to use “Son of God” and in which he names Isaiah the prophet.
None of
these passages in Against Heresies
shows any sign of tampering by the Latin translator of Against Heresies. It looks
like Irenaeus used two different forms of the text of Mark 1:2 – one which read,
“in the prophets,” and one which read
“in Isaiah the prophet,” in the
Western form of the Greek text (ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ). The only conclusion this evidence points to
is that two forms of Mark 1:2 – one reading “in
Isaiah the prophet” and another reading “in
the prophets” – were in circulation in the 180’s.
Now let’s
turn to a comment made by a Syriac writer named Isho’dad of Merv, around A.D.
850. Though later than Charlemagne,
Isho’dad’s writings are valuable, inasmuch as he frequently relied upon older
compositions. Isho’dad acknowledged a
difficulty in the Syriac text of Mark 1:2 (where the Peshitta reads “in Isaiah the prophet”) and he mentioned
five proposals about how to resolve it, without expressing a preference for any
of them:
“It is asked, ‘Why did Mark say, “As it is
written in Isaiah the prophet, ‘Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face,’”
etc., when it is written in Malachi?
“Some say that it was in Isaiah and
was lost. Other say that he put to the
voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way,’ etc., this sign as an
answer. Others say that because it was
translated from Roman [i.e., Latin; this reflects a tradition that Mark
originally wrote in Latin] to Greek, and
from that to Syriac, the interpreters made a mistake, and put ‘Isaiah’ instead
of ‘Malachi.’
“Others say that he [i.e., Mark]
is not concerned to be meticulously
precise about the reference, as is the custom of the Scriptures.
“Others say that the
Diatessaron-book, which was composed in Alexandria , instead of this ‘as it is written by
Isaiah the prophet,’ says, ‘by the prophets.’” (See Margaret Gibson’s The
Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, 1911, Vol. 1, page 126).
Let’s zoom
in on that last proposal. Isho’dad, in
his description of the Diatessaron
as a text composed in Alexandria, has probably confused the Diatessaron of
Ammonius of Alexandria – a Matthew-centered cross-reference system mentioned in
the much-circulated Ad
Carpian, but not known to be extant – with the Diatessaron produced by Tatian
(in the early 170’s), in which the contents of the four Gospels were blended
together into a single non-repeating narrative.
The text
that Tatian produced – whether Greek or Syriac – is not extant, and its fullest
echo, the Arabic
Diatessaron, has been extensively (but not entirely) conformed to the Peshitta. (That is, the
arrangement of the text was substantially retained, but because Tatian was
suspected of heresy due to his asceticism, the text itself was adjusted to agree
(mostly) with the Peshitta, and this Syriac text was subsequently translated
into Arabic.) Isho’dad’s statement here,
then, may be the only extant indication that Tatian’s Diatessaron originally
contained the reading “in the prophets”
extracted from Mark 1:2.
J. Rendel
Harris, in the preface to Gibson’s translation of Isho’dad’s Commentary (p.
xxviii), mentioned that a later Syriac writer, Jacob
Bar-Salibi (d. 1171), expanded Isho’dad’s remark: “Others [say] that in the book Diatessaron
which is preserved [or was composed] in Alexandria and was written by Tatianus
the bishop, as also in the Greek Gospel and in the Harkalian, it is written ‘in
the prophet,’ without explaining what prophet.”
If indeed
Tatian’s Diatessaron read “in the
prophets,” then this would constitute another second-century witness for
that reading.
Continued in Part Four: Mark 1:2 and Some Other Evidence
4 comments:
James,
Perhaps you will be able to deal with how Irenaeus could have used two clearly different readings in the same writing. When he incorporated the second citation he had to have known it was different than the first. Why wouldn't he have made an attempt to determine which one was original and use only that one? Or if he wasn't sure, then pick one and go with it to be consistent.
-Jim Raymond
Jim Raymond,
The question calls for guesswork, so I hope I am not criticized for offering a guess.
The part in which the four faces of the four cherubim correspond to the four Gospels is similar to passages in other patristic compositions -- sometimes matching up with Irenaeus' comparisons, and sometimes not (the symbols for Mark and John get turned around, so that Mark is the lion and John is the eagle).
One possibility is that he utilized something he had written previously, when he had been in a different locale (as I mentioned, Irenaeus' footsteps fell in Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul) where the text of Mark 1:1-2 read differently than the text in Gaul, and that he didn't sense that the difference had a significant impact on the point he was making.
But keep in mind that while, yes, the consistent thing to do would be to pick one and go with it to be consistent, patristic writers weren't always consistent. It is not rare at all to see patristic writers quote a passage one way, and then a different way. (Look, in the UBS apparatus, for the superscripted fractions next to authors' names for examples of this.) In every case, the exact means by which the author came to use one form of the text, and then another (when cases of mere loose recollection are not involved), maybe a mystery, and a sign of inconsistency by the author (or, possibly, of revision by the copyists of his works, but that doesn't seem to be the case here). But inconsistent evidence is still evidence.
Jim Raymond,
Another idea is that Irenaeus was using another composition that was written by someone else -- an idea that has been proposed by T.C. Skeat. (Find the Google Books format of "The Biblical Writings of T. C Skeat" and run a search for "cherubim" and you should be close to the relevant section.)
Are there any quotations for the Isaiah variant before this one? If no, could it be that he was in a hurry and was writing "from memory" and got it wrong? I say this because it's obvious that there is no quote like this found written in the OT book of Isaiah. Perhaps we have here the genesis of the mistake repeated in Aleph, B & others...
Post a Comment