The Role of Transcriptional Probability in the Text-Critical Debate on Mark 1:1
Among the text-critical issues perennially debated is the question of whether υιου̃ θεου̃ ("Son of God") belongs in Mark 1:1. Due to the nature of the evidence, the category of transcriptional probability has played a critical, if not decisive, role. In fact, for some advocates of the shor...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Catholic Biblical Association of America
2015
|
| In: |
The catholic biblical quarterly
Year: 2015, Volume: 77, Issue: 3, Pages: 467-480 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Among the text-critical issues perennially debated is the question of whether υιου̃ θεου̃ ("Son of God") belongs in Mark 1:1. Due to the nature of the evidence, the category of transcriptional probability has played a critical, if not decisive, role. In fact, for some advocates of the shorter reading (lacking υιου̃ θεου̃), transcriptional probability has proven to be the decisive factor in the debate. In this article, I offer a summary of the two primary reasons why advocates of the shorter reading believe that transcriptional probability is strongly in their favor: (1) the nature and location of the putative scribal omission; and (2) the theological motivation for scribal insertion. I then proceed to demonstrate why neither of these arguments is as strong as it initially appears. First, I adduce sufficient evidence to warrant the plausibility of scribal omission of "Son of God" in Mark 1:1. Second, I examine the function of Mark 1:1 in patristic citations. The evidence collated from these sources suggests that the presence or absence of υιου̃ θεου̃ had very little significance for early readers of the Second Gospel. Thus, it is less certain that a scribe would be highly motivated to insert Son of God at the end of Mark 1:1. The overall proposal I offer is rather modest; given the state of the evidence, I submit that transcriptional probability should not be the decisive criterion in the text-critical debate on Mark 1:1. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2163-2529 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The catholic biblical quarterly
|