Dean B. Deppe 58 tra Celsum 2:4), the witnesses of Codex Sinaiticus with its Alexandrian provenance as well as Codex Coridethianus from the Caesarean text type could all trace back to a single scribal error. Furthermore, with regard to support from the fathers Kasmierski among others points out that they “quoted the Scriptures freely and from memory and did not hesitate to omit what was not of direct relevance to the point they were making”44. Specifically regarding the reading from Lyons by Irenaeus, Turner45 claims that the omission is due to Irenaeus’ preoccupation with the iden- tification of the Gospel of Mark with the figure of a lion from Rev. 4:7, to which the phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ was not germane. Irenaeus’ concentration on the introductions to all the gospels would have truncated Mk. 1:1.46 But Head47 counters this argument calling attention to the carefulness of Irenaeus’ transcription of the text. In quoting Jn.1:1, 3 and Mt. 1:1, 18 (HE 3,11,8) Irenaeus places a καί between the verses whereas in the quote from Mk. 1:1,2 no καί is present evidencing a continuous quote of the entire text with “Son of God” not found. While at first this evidence seems convincing, an analysis of the Latin of this text reveals that the title “Jesus Christ” is also missing (Initium, dicens, Euangelii, quemad- modum scriptum est in Esaia propheta)48. In fact, A. Souter accepted the Latin text as original and argued that Irenaeus omitted the entire expression ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ49. The inconsistency in Irenaeus’ text is further witnessed by the fact that Against Heresies 3,11, 8 reads in both Greek and Latin “as written in Isaiah the prophet” while 3,10,5 and 3,16,3 both include the words, “as it is written in the prophets” (rather than specifically mentioning Isaiah). This proves that Irenaeus is flexible in his quoting of Scripture. Again, even Adela Collins who decides for the omission of “Son of God” takes Irenaeus as a witness for the inclusion of this title. She concludes that it is “unlikely that an author would use two different texts of the Gospel in passages within the same book of the same work”50. Therefore, although early patristic witnesses from the east Kazmierski, Jesus, the Son of God, 5. See the discussion in Metzger, Text, 86-92. 44 C.H. Turner, “A Textual Commentary on Mark 1”, JTS 28 (1927); 150. 45 Burgan, Traditional Text, 284, n. 3 and Globe, “Caesarean Omission”, 212 agree with 46 this analysis. Head, “Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1”, 625. 47 In the Sources Chretiennes volume (SC 211) of Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutre- 48 leau the Greek (p. 167, lines 208f) is missing the entire expression, “Jesus Christ, Son of God”, similar to the Latin (p. 166, lines 216f), but this appears to be a mistake. Kazmierski, Jesus the Son of God, 5 following the Sources Chretiennes text incorrectly omits ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ as well, although the Latin text does not include this phrase. Cf. Alexander Souter, “The New Testament Text of Irenaeus”, in Novum Testamentum 49 Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis. ed. W. Sanday and C.H. Turner (Oxford: Clarendon 1923) cxxix. Collins, “Establishing the Text”, 114. 50