# Ambrose on Mark 13:32



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 27, 2016)

I was just reading Ambrose of Milan and came across this interesting comment on Mark 13:32:

It is written, they [the Arians] say: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." But it is not to be wondered at if they who have corrupted the sacred Scriptures, have also falsified this passage. The reason for which it seems to have been inserted is perfectly plain, so long as it is applied to unfold such blasphemy.

Ambrose of Milan, _Exposition of the Christian faith_, 5.16.192 in _NPNF2_ 10:308.

Is anyone aware of any variant readings of this text among the extant Greek manuscripts?


----------



## Whitefield (Feb 23, 2016)

ουδε ο υιος is omitted from Mark 13:32 in one uncial, X, which is a 10th century uncial in the Byzantine family and minuscule 983, a 12th minuscule of the Caesarean family. A more interesting list occurs in the parallel passage in Matthew 24:36.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 24, 2016)

Thanks, Lance.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 25, 2016)

Here is the complete citation...

"It is written, they say: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." First of all the ancient Greek manuscripts do not contain the words, "neither the Son." But it is not to be wondered at if they who have corrupted the sacred Scriptures, have also falsified this passage. The reason for which it seems to have been inserted is perfectly plain, so long as it is applied to unfold such blasphemy."

Ambrose lived in the 4th century and claims that "the ancient Greek manuscripts" did not contain the reading which is today accepted by all (TR, MT/Byzantine, CT). 

Either Ambrose was mistaken OR there were known readings by the 4th century in the oldest manuscripts they had that were not common in their contemporary copies. The conundrum that follows from this is that no form of textual criticism today can examine the extant manuscripts and demonstrate that Ambrose's assertion here is correct or that it reflects the correct reading. However, if Ambrose was correct and there were a commonly known "ancient copies" (1st - 3rd century copies) with a different reading, what are the implications for the field of textual criticism?


----------



## Whitefield (Feb 25, 2016)

Robert Truelove said:


> However, if Ambrose was correct and there were a commonly known "ancient copies" (1st - 3rd century copies) with a different reading, what are the implications for the field of textual criticism?



Actually no implications until said "ancient copies" are discovered. A hypothetical does not alter what is in hand. As an aside the critical apparatus does note the phrase was absent in some vulgate manuscripts.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 25, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > However, if Ambrose was correct and there were a commonly known "ancient copies" (1st - 3rd century copies) with a different reading, what are the implications for the field of textual criticism?
> ...



That just seems a bit arbitrary to me. Ambrose wasn't making a hypothetical argument, he was saying the ancient copies available in his day had another reading.

I'm not saying that I agree with the reading of Ambrose on this, but why is his testimony from the 4th century more valid than ours from the 21st? Would it not be highly probable that he had access to far more ancient manuscripts than we will ever discover?

Again to be clear, I'm questioning more of how we reason through this stuff than making an argument in favor of the reading in question.


----------



## MW (Feb 25, 2016)

The possibility exists that Ambrose was thinking of the Gospel of Matthew.


----------



## Whitefield (Feb 26, 2016)

It would be interesting to know if Ambrose could read Greek. Also it would be interesting to know if Ambrose saw and studied the ancient copies he refers to, or if he was relying on what someone else told him.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 26, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> It would be interesting to know if Ambrose could read Greek.



"St. Ambrose was a diligent student of the Greek writers, whom he often follows largely, especially Origen and Didymus, as also St. Basil the Great and St. Athanasius...His natural abilities and thorough knowledge of Greek stood him in good stead, when, as he says himself, he had to learn and to teach at the same time." (NPNF2.10 Introduction to the Writings of Ambrose of Milan)


----------

