JoeWallack

JW:
The offending verse:

Mark 1:1

The Textual Criticism issue is the addition/originality of:

"(the) Son of God"

Bart Ehrman, who I would guess, would be voted the top Textual Critic in the world if a such a poll was taken, and is an Agnostic, has written in The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture pages 72-75 (be sure and read the related footnotes) that he concludes addition.

The key point of Ehrman's argument is that a combination of a minimum of quality witness evidence for addition and the difficult reading principle make addition more likely than originality. The best online summary I've seen of the related Textual Criticism evidence is Wieland Willker's:

A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 2 Mark TVU 1

Freeloader beware, I have faith that Willker is a Believer as his presentation emphasizes presenting/promoting authority that is for original which understates the Patristic support for addition and the application of the difficult reading principle to such a qualitative phrase.

The objectives of this Thread will be:

1) To inventory the evidence for addition and original.

2) To weigh the evidence.

3) To conclude based on the weighted evidence.



Joseph

Church Tradition. Noun/Verb. A mysterious entity which unlike Jesus who was only able to incarnate once, can be magically invoked on demand by Apologetic whim as solid contemporary undisputed evidence by a credible institution or just as easily disincarnated by the same as merely the opinion of men and not Scripture.

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

I voted probably original because the external evidence clearly supports inclusion. I'm not at all sure I'm right.

Andrew Criddle

tanya

Thanks, Andrew, always a pleasure to encounter your opinion.

I would beg to differ with you, I rely upon Codex Sinaiticus, which lacks the phrase, son of god, i.e. υιου του θεου, even though, whenever I am asked why I find the entire story to be a myth, I invariably cite Mark 1:1, as though it contained υιου του θεου. So, I am hypocritical.

I acknowledge that just because Codex Sinaiticus is our oldest extant copy of Mark 1:1, that does not mean that it is the more accurate version, but, since any version could have been altered, from the original, I cannot discount Codex Sinaiticus, for that reason.

I am fascinated by the use of ιυ χυ instead of ιησου χριστου, as is found in the Byzantine versions.

I don't know if that fact could weigh in some fashion, in our assessment of which version was closer to the original.....

andrewcriddle

One should note that although the original copyist of Mark in Sinaiticus omitted the phrase a contemporary corrector added it.

I.E. "Son of God" had been added to the text of Sinaiticus before the manuscript left the shop.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

I voted 'I don't know' because I really don't know.

tanya

Andrew, forgive my pestering here. Sorry.

I am looking at Codex Sinaiticus, as I type this.

Some forum members may not realize, but this wonderful edition of the most fantastic book in the world (only in my opinion, obviously), has a terrific feature, on the upper left corner of every page of the ancient text, that permits the user to magnify particular components, to see the text more clearly.

Andrew, I nowhere find anything other than what has been posted here. In other words, I don't know where you are seeing υιου του θεου, because, it is not there.

Is it possible that you are looking at a copy of Codex Vaticanus, instead? I have never seen that book, but I understand that it is quite similar to Codex Sinaiticus.

For sure, the page I am looking at, reads:
ου ιυ χυ καθωϲ γε γραπται εν τω ηϲα ϊα τω προφητη .....

There is no addition, corresponding to υιου του θεου in Mark 1:1 of Codex Sinaiticus.

Cheers,

outhouse

I voted this way because the author of Gmark used many paralles to the emporers divinity, and "son of god" was a mortal mans before the Yehoshua character

Chili

I voted 'addition' because Jesus Christ was not yet and sure was not present in any of Mark. Then, if Mark was first, as is commonly held, JC would not even be a phantom for the author of Mark.

But, once they add the name Jesus Christ the words 'Son of God' do belong because there is only one 'firstborn' worthy to bear that name in his own right.

If, on the other hand, John was introduced proclaiming the baptism of repentance which leads to the forgiveness of sins, also the words Jesus Christ do not belong; moreover to say that the desert is indeed where souls are known to suffer and so for him is the right place to be, but not as desert dweller himself who can only lead them astray, and that is why the the prologue needed to be changed. Let's not forget here that a camel-hair coat and wild honey does not represent divine intimacy at all (cf. the prologue in gJohn where this John was the Word made manifest and Jesus just became part of the scene after that).

Just see what happens next, where fire came down from heaven in the form of a dove that send Jesus into the desert where he was with nothing familiar except wild beast to contradict him as Nazorean, and therefore, while there [only] angels waited on him as if the dove had left him stranded already = no manger for sure in the 'infancy' of this Jesus here.

Angels here are peculiar from Lucifer as pot-hole fillers when the going gets tough and will teach us to sing patient endurance songs in a wasteland of our own.

andrewcriddle

Hi Tanya

Try running your mouse over the blue T in the transcription of Mark 1:1.

Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar

Addition.

The rest of Mark (nix 16:9-20) doesn't seem to at all play up the Deity angle like the other Gospels.

The tale seems to have been originally composed so as to have led and allowed the reader at the end to form their own conclusions.

Having those SoGs stuck in there so up front in Mark 1 looks as totally out of place as basket-ball on a Tennis court.


Not that it matters. I expect this text got diddled with in more than one place, and it isn't any real history any way.