This is rather a quick question on a first read of Mark 1:1:
Should the genitive “of Jesus Christ” be translated as a
possessive belonging to the “Gospel” in the first clause?
Also, isn’t the clumsiness of the phrase, rather hanging at the end
sufficient proof for its later addition in B D W /al/
Dony K. Donev
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ὶησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]. ARXH TOU EUAGGELIOU IHSOU XRISTOU [hUIOU QEOU].
I would take this to be an objective genitive, but I am reminded of the theme song of the old “Mr. Ed” show “A horse is a horse, of course, of course …” Similarly, a genitive is a genitive so it’s a matter of interpretation. You say “potaytoe” and I say “potahtoe.” As to the awkwardness of the ending υἱοῦ θεοῦ hUIOU QEOU, what awkwardness? The attestation is reasonably good, and I would hesitate to exclude something solely because of my criticism of its literary style — particularly in a language other than my native language. Admittedly, there are times when some text can appear glaringly obvious, but not always. I’m thinking particularly of Re 16.15 where we suddenly find the announcement “Behold, I come as a thief …” What is so glaring about that is that it simply seems as though it is dropped into the middle of an unrelated matter. Nevertheless, all Mss contain it and so it remains in the text. Most often changes are made in a text to smooth them out rather than to make them more difficult. The scribe seems to say, “I can write better Greek than that.”
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thanks for the replay. Perhaps you meant:
All MSS [do not] contain it. Metzger claims it is omitted in a* Q28^C /al/ which is a bit major.
At the same time, Michael Turton writes: “The term “gospel” (/euangelion/) seems to have been in general use as part of a standard phrase/arche tou euangeliou/(the beginning of the gospel) known from proclamations and inscriptions from the time of Augustus. The phrase “Son of God” (/theou hyios/) was also used of Roman emperors (Helms 1988, p28-9).”
Hense my question: Is it a simple addition OR a Roman proclamation formula whereas the intended meaning was: “the Gospel …. OF the Son of God” ?
Dony
href=”mailto:wie@uni-bremen.de”>wie@uni-bremen.de
I meant precisely what I said. If you are referring to Metzger’s _A Textual Commentary_, he says nothing regarding it whatsoever. Even Tischendorf only comments on matters such as ἔρχομαι / ἔρχεται ERXOMAI / ERXETAI but says nothing regarding the presence or absence of the passage as a whole.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I neglected answering your question at the end of your reply. As I said, I take it to be an objective genitive. It is the gospel ABOUT Jesus Christ. In Re 1.1 we have “The revelation of Jesus Christ …” which could mean that it belongs to him (Note that it states that God gave it to him) or it could mean that Jesus Christ is the source (Note that it says that he sent it to his servant John) or it could mean that it is ABOUT Jesus Christ. In answer to a question “Is it A or B or C?” I tend to say, “Yes.” In other words, take your pick. Is it a “Roman proclamation formula”? Perhaps. The term εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION was used for such things as the announcement of the Emperor’s accession or his birthday, but that was not the only use made of the term so why should we insist on restricting it to that? It was also used to refer to the reward given to a messenger among other uses. Sometimes we try too overinterpret texts which is part of the reason we don’t discuss theology here. As Sgt Friday in the old Dragnet series would say, “Just the Greek, ma’am.”
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Let me amplify my remarks. I’m not attempting to say that the understanding of εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION as a proclamation of the Emperor’s arrival is incorrect. I’m saying that you must marshall your arguments for that position. I can think of two points offhand without even trying: (1) John (immediately following) as the κῆρυξ KHRUC announcing the impending visitation. (2) The triumphal entry of Mk 11.1-11 riding on a donkey (the traditional transportation of the pretender about to acceed to the throne in Jerusalem (See 1 Kg 1.28-40). Nevertheless, that is not determined by either the lexicography or the syntax of the Greek and is therefore not the subject for this forum. It could, however, well be argued elsewhere.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Dony,
George’s original comment that you’re referring to was about the verse in the Revelation not having any variants regarding the statement “I come as a thief” being odd where it was placed. He wasn’t saying that your verse in Mark doesn’t have any variants. I think you misunderstood his reference there.
Regards, Jason Hare Rehovot, Israel
Actually, my original question was much simpler and did not involve Revelation at all, which is irrelevant here (as I am persuaded it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and not about).
I was simply asking if the phrase “of the Son of God” in Mark 1:1 is a modifier of the /evangelieon/. Meaning if the verse should be translated:
The Gospel … of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
OR
The Gospel … of Jesus Christ, of the Son of God (2^nd of to reflect on the Genitive)
Consecutively, I encountered Metzger, where the Committee was aware of the lack of the phrase in several major sources, but considered to leave the phrase in brackets.
On the other hand, I mentioned Turton who sees the combination of “evangelion …. of the Son of God” as direct resemblance to the way Roman emperors addressed the people. The presence of such formula, however, greatly disagrees with the “slave” symbolism used by Mark to describe Jesus. My main concern, therefore, was if the imperial form was added later, which raised my question about the grammatical appropriateness of “of Jesus Christ” hanging at the end of the clause.
I understand that when rendered in English the question makes little difference, but let’s remember that there are other language groups subscribed to this great list (hence, examples like potatoes and patatas, Mr. Ed and so on may be perceived as offensive by some).
Thank you all for your helpful input.
Dony K. Donev
I note that Holmes leaves out not only the brackets (good,) but the whole phrase (bad.) 🙂
Maybe somebody could post the exact wording of the inscription about Augustus, so we can see how compelling the parallel is.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
_*METZGER:*_
*1.1*Cristou/ @ui`ou/ qeou/#{C}
The absence of ui`ou/ qeou/in a* Q28^C /al/ may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the /nomina sacra/. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed)^1 to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W /al/ in support of ui`ou/ qeou/is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets.
_*TURON (as found here *_http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html_*):*_
v1: The term “gospel” (/euangelion/) seems to have been in general use as part of a standard phrase/arche tou euangeliou/(the beginning of the gospel) known from proclamations and inscriptions from the time of Augustus. The phrase “Son of God” (/theou hyios/) was also used of Roman emperors (Helms 1988, p28-9). Craig Evans (2000, p69-70) offers a translation of one such inscription, the Priene Inscription:
“It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior [swthvr], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance [fanei’n] (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him [hrxen de; tw’i kovsmwi tw’n di? aujto;neujangelivwnhJ genevqlio” tou’ qeou’],”which Asia resolved in Smyrna…”
Evans observes:
“Comparison of Mark’s incipit with this part of the inscription seems fully warranted. First, there is reference to good news, or ‘gospel. In Mark the word appears in the singular, while in the inscription it probably appears twice in the more conventional plural. Secondly, there is reference to the beginning of this good news. In Mark the nominal form is employed, while in the inscription the verbal form is employed. Thirdly, this good news is brought about by a divine agent. In Mark this agent is ‘Jesus the Anointed’, (either in the incipit, or as declared elsewhere in the Markan Gospel), while in the inscription the agent is ‘Augustus’, the ‘savior’ and ‘benefactor’….” [Greek removed].
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ὶησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]. ARXH TOU EUAGGELIOU IHSOU XRISTOU [hUIOU QEOU].
I would take this to be an objective genitive, but I am reminded of the theme song of the old “Mr. Ed” show “A horse is a horse, of course, of course …” Similarly, a genitive is a genitive so it’s a matter of interpretation. You say “potaytoe” and I say “potahtoe.” As to the awkwardness of the ending υἱοῦ θεοῦ hUIOU QEOU, what awkwardness? The attestation is reasonably good, and I would hesitate to exclude something solely because of my criticism of its literary style — particularly in a language other than my native language. Admittedly, there are times when some text can appear glaringly obvious, but not always. I’m thinking particularly of Re 16.15 where we suddenly find the announcement “Behold, I come as a thief …” What is so glaring about that is that it simply seems as though it is dropped into the middle of an unrelated matter. Nevertheless, all Mss contain it and so it remains in the text. Most often changes are made in a text to smooth them out rather than to make them more difficult. The scribe seems to say, “I can write better Greek than that.”
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Thanks for the replay. Perhaps you meant:
All MSS [do not] contain it. Metzger claims it is omitted in a* Q28^C /al/ which is a bit major.
At the same time, Michael Turton writes: “The term “gospel” (/euangelion/) seems to have been in general use as part of a standard phrase/arche tou euangeliou/(the beginning of the gospel) known from proclamations and inscriptions from the time of Augustus. The phrase “Son of God” (/theou hyios/) was also used of Roman emperors (Helms 1988, p28-9).”
Hense my question: Is it a simple addition OR a Roman proclamation formula whereas the intended meaning was: “the Gospel …. OF the Son of God” ?
Dony
href=”mailto:wie@uni-bremen.de”>wie@uni-bremen.de
I meant precisely what I said. If you are referring to Metzger’s _A Textual Commentary_, he says nothing regarding it whatsoever. Even Tischendorf only comments on matters such as ἔρχομαι / ἔρχεται ERXOMAI / ERXETAI but says nothing regarding the presence or absence of the passage as a whole.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
I neglected answering your question at the end of your reply. As I said, I take it to be an objective genitive. It is the gospel ABOUT Jesus Christ. In Re 1.1 we have “The revelation of Jesus Christ …” which could mean that it belongs to him (Note that it states that God gave it to him) or it could mean that Jesus Christ is the source (Note that it says that he sent it to his servant John) or it could mean that it is ABOUT Jesus Christ. In answer to a question “Is it A or B or C?” I tend to say, “Yes.” In other words, take your pick. Is it a “Roman proclamation formula”? Perhaps. The term εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION was used for such things as the announcement of the Emperor’s accession or his birthday, but that was not the only use made of the term so why should we insist on restricting it to that? It was also used to refer to the reward given to a messenger among other uses. Sometimes we try too overinterpret texts which is part of the reason we don’t discuss theology here. As Sgt Friday in the old Dragnet series would say, “Just the Greek, ma’am.”
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Let me amplify my remarks. I’m not attempting to say that the understanding of εὐαγγέλιον EUAGGELION as a proclamation of the Emperor’s arrival is incorrect. I’m saying that you must marshall your arguments for that position. I can think of two points offhand without even trying: (1) John (immediately following) as the κῆρυξ KHRUC announcing the impending visitation. (2) The triumphal entry of Mk 11.1-11 riding on a donkey (the traditional transportation of the pretender about to acceed to the throne in Jerusalem (See 1 Kg 1.28-40). Nevertheless, that is not determined by either the lexicography or the syntax of the Greek and is therefore not the subject for this forum. It could, however, well be argued elsewhere.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Dony,
George’s original comment that you’re referring to was about the verse in the Revelation not having any variants regarding the statement “I come as a thief” being odd where it was placed. He wasn’t saying that your verse in Mark doesn’t have any variants. I think you misunderstood his reference there.
Regards, Jason Hare Rehovot, Israel
Actually, my original question was much simpler and did not involve Revelation at all, which is irrelevant here (as I am persuaded it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and not about).
I was simply asking if the phrase “of the Son of God” in Mark 1:1 is a modifier of the /evangelieon/. Meaning if the verse should be translated:
The Gospel … of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
OR
The Gospel … of Jesus Christ, of the Son of God (2^nd of to reflect on the Genitive)
Consecutively, I encountered Metzger, where the Committee was aware of the lack of the phrase in several major sources, but considered to leave the phrase in brackets.
On the other hand, I mentioned Turton who sees the combination of “evangelion …. of the Son of God” as direct resemblance to the way Roman emperors addressed the people. The presence of such formula, however, greatly disagrees with the “slave” symbolism used by Mark to describe Jesus. My main concern, therefore, was if the imperial form was added later, which raised my question about the grammatical appropriateness of “of Jesus Christ” hanging at the end of the clause.
I understand that when rendered in English the question makes little difference, but let’s remember that there are other language groups subscribed to this great list (hence, examples like potatoes and patatas, Mr. Ed and so on may be perceived as offensive by some).
Thank you all for your helpful input.
Dony K. Donev
I note that Holmes leaves out not only the brackets (good,) but the whole phrase (bad.) 🙂
Maybe somebody could post the exact wording of the inscription about Augustus, so we can see how compelling the parallel is.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
_*METZGER:*_
*1.1*Cristou/ @ui`ou/ qeou/#{C}
The absence of ui`ou/ qeou/in a* Q28^C /al/ may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the /nomina sacra/. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed)^1 to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W /al/ in support of ui`ou/ qeou/is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets.
_*TURON (as found here *_http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html_*):*_
v1: The term “gospel” (/euangelion/) seems to have been in general use as part of a standard phrase/arche tou euangeliou/(the beginning of the gospel) known from proclamations and inscriptions from the time of Augustus. The phrase “Son of God” (/theou hyios/) was also used of Roman emperors (Helms 1988, p28-9). Craig Evans (2000, p69-70) offers a translation of one such inscription, the Priene Inscription:
“It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior [swthvr], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance [fanei’n] (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him [hrxen de; tw’i kovsmwi tw’n di? aujto;neujangelivwnhJ genevqlio” tou’ qeou’],”which Asia resolved in Smyrna…”
Evans observes:
“Comparison of Mark’s incipit with this part of the inscription seems fully warranted. First, there is reference to good news, or ‘gospel. In Mark the word appears in the singular, while in the inscription it probably appears twice in the more conventional plural. Secondly, there is reference to the beginning of this good news. In Mark the nominal form is employed, while in the inscription the verbal form is employed. Thirdly, this good news is brought about by a divine agent. In Mark this agent is ‘Jesus the Anointed’, (either in the incipit, or as declared elsewhere in the Markan Gospel), while in the inscription the agent is ‘Augustus’, the ‘savior’ and ‘benefactor’….” [Greek removed].
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
I luv you guys. “No rest for the wicked…” and I could use it.
I luv you guys. “No rest for the wicked…” and I could use it.