rigorist

Holy Cow!

You mean Mark is an assembled text and may not be historically accurate?

Does Burton Mack (or via: amazon.co.uk) know about this?

JoeWallack

JW:


Angry Young Man


Significant Variant #6:

Mark 1:41

καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ θέλω καθαρίσθητι

And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean


And Metzger commentary:

1.41 σπλαγχνισθείς {B}
It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why ὀργισθείς (“being angry”) would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to σπλαγχνισθείς (“being filled with compassion”), but not easy to account for the opposite change. On the other hand, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the following considerations. (1) The character of the external evidence in support of ὀργισθείς is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports σπλαγχνισθείς. (2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3.5) or indignant (10.14), have not prompted over-scrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading ὀργισθείς either (a) was suggested by ἐμβριμησάμενος of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraḥam, “he had pity,” with ethra‘em, “he was enraged”).6

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York

JW:
The Evidence for "Mark's" Jesus being angry here is even better than what Metzger says above. Moving up the Textual Critic scale France points out in NIGTC that unlike the other two examples of "Mark's" Jesus being angry cited by Metzger, in 1:41 there is no apparent reason why Jesus would be angry. Trying to supply a reason has resulted in some entertaining Apologymnastics.

As we move further up the Textual Critic scale (me) there is another reason for "Mark" to attribute anger to his Jesus here. Throughout "Mark" the author uses the Literary Technique of assigning the same Emotion at the Start and End of Related Blocks of his story. The "Amazing/Surprised" emotion is the most common. This Emotion helps create a Tone for the entire related story.

Mark 1: (NIV)

38 "Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come." 39So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.
A Man With Leprosy
40A man with leprosy[f] came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean."
41Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" 42Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. "


JW:
So at the Start of the Galilean ministry Jesus is Angry.

Mark 3 (NIV)

"1 Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."
4Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.
5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
Crowds Follow Jesus
7Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake, and a large crowd from Galilee followed. 8When they heard all he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon. 9Because of the crowd he told his disciples to have a small boat ready for him, to keep the people from crowding him. 10For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him. 11Whenever the evil[a] spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." 12But he gave them strict orders not to tell who he was.
The Appointing of the Twelve Apostles
13Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14He appointed twelve—designating them apostles[b]—that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15and to have authority to drive out demons. 16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter 17James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him."

JW:
So at the End of the Galilean ministry Jesus is Angry.

An important Christian Doctrine is that Jesus was a perfect role model for human behaviour. In 1:41 a Jesus who gets angry for no apparent reason is less than a perfect role model.

Using Literary conventions like this is another argument for Markan priority as "Matthew" and "Luke" tend to undo this kind of Emotional Connection at the Start and End of Sections. This Type of Intentional Editing is a very good category of Evidence for Markan priority. Stephen Carlson is championing "Editorial Fatigue" as a very good catergory of evidence for Markan priority. Because Editorial Fatigue is Unintentional, it is a very bad category of Evidence. It is the Intent that gives Evidence Consistency and gives it Weight. Carlson and Goodacre prefer the Unintentional category because that makes "Matthew"/"Luke" look less Guilty. Understand Dear Reader?

As a side note, Daniel Wallace, who is a pretty intelligent Christian author, has written a review of Misquoting Jesus here:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000

JW

And by an Act of Providence it just so happens that Wallace comments on Ehrancyman's comments of 1:41. Enjoy!:

"Mark 1.41

In the first chapter of Mark’s Gospel, a leper approaches Jesus and asks him to heal him: “If you are willing, you can make me clean” (Mark 1.40). Jesus’ response is recorded in the Nestle-Aland text as follows: καὶ… σπλαγχνισθει…Vς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ… λ�*γει αὐτῳÇ· θ�*λω,καθαρίσθητι (“and moved with compassion, he stretched out [his] hand and touched him and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed”). Instead of σπλαγχνισθει…vς (‘moved with compassion’) a few Western witnesses50 read ὀργισθείς (‘becoming angry’). Jesus’ motivation for this healing apparently hangs in the balance. Even though the UBS4 gives σπλαγχνισθει…vς a B rating, an increasing number of exegetes are starting to argue for the authenticity of ὀργισθείς. In a Festschrift for Gerald Hawthorne in 2003, Ehrman made an impressive argument for its authenticity.51 Four years earlier, a doctoral dissertation by Mark Proctor was written in defense of ojrgisqeivV.52 The reading has also made its way into the TNIV, and is seriously entertained in the NET. We won’t take the time to consider the arguments here. At this stage I am inclined to think it is most likely original. Either way, for the sake of argument, assuming that the ‘angry’ reading is authentic, what does this tell us about Jesus that we didn’t know before?

Ehrman suggests that if Mark originally wrote about Jesus’ anger in this passage, it changes our picture of Jesus in Mark significantly. In fact, this textual problem is his lead example in chapter 5 (“Originals That Matter”), a chapter whose central thesis is that some variants “affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.”53 This thesis is overstated in general, and particularly for Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 3.5 Jesus is said to be angry—wording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark. And in Mark 10.14 he is indignant at his disciples.

Ehrman, of course, knows this. In fact, he argues implicitly in the Hawthorne Festschrift that Jesus’ anger in Mark 1.41 perfectly fits into the picture that Mark elsewhere paints of Jesus. He says, for example, “Mark described Jesus as angry, and, at least in this instance, scribes took offense. This comes as no surprise; apart from a fuller understanding of Mark’s portrayal, Jesus’ anger is difficult to understand.”54 Ehrman even lays out the fundamental principle that he sees running through Mark: “Jesus is angered when anyone questions his authority or ability to heal—or his desire to heal.”55 Now, for sake of argument, let’s assume that not only is Ehrman’s textual reconstruction correct, but his interpretation of ὀργισθείς in Mark 1.41 is correct—not only in that passage but in the totality of Mark’s presentation of Jesus.56 If so, how then does an angry Jesus in 1.41 “affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament”? According to Ehrman’s own interpretation, ὀργισθείς only strengthens the image we see of Jesus in this Gospel by making it wholly consistent with the other texts that speak of his anger. If this reading is Exhibit A in Ehrman’s fifth chapter, it seriously backfires, for it does little or nothing to alter the overall portrait of Jesus that Mark paints. Here is another instance, then, in which Ehrman’s theological conclusion is more provocative than the evidence suggests."



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

PhilosopherJay

Hi Joe,

Thanks for this wonderful stuff.

I would like to point out the the story is quite flat with either compassion or anger in it. However, when we put anger in it, we can see how the original may have read:

And Belzebub, king of demons said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may cast out demons for therefore came I forth.
And there came a leper to him, The leper had come from Moses who had told him how to get Belzebub to cure him.
The leper said, "You cannot make me clean."
Belzebub said, "If I want to I can."
The leper said again, "You cannot make me clean, even if you want to"
Being moved with anger, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and said to him, "I want to. Be made clean.”
And immediately, he was cleaned and immediately, charged Belzebub, do not do anything to any man: but go on your way,
and immediately he departed from him and showed himself to the priest as a testimony to those things which Moses commanded.

Warmly,.

Philospher Jay

JoeWallack

JW:


I'm Going Home


Significant Variant #7:

Mark 2:1

καὶ εἰσελθὼν πάλιν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ δι' ἡμερῶν �*κούσθη ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν

And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was in the house.

And Metzger commentary:

2.1 ἐν οἴκῳ
Although part of the Committee preferred εἰς οἶκον (A C Γ Δ �* Φ 090 f 1 f 13 22 28 157 330 543 565 579 al) as less literary and in the Markan style, a majority was impressed by the widespread and diversified attestation supporting ἐν οἴκῳ (א B D L W Θ Σ 33 571 892 1071 al).

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York

JW:
Even "Mark's" Jesus would be sore Amazed at the Translations created by Apologists here but to Translate Metzger, "ἐν οἴκῳ" is generally Translated as "at home", while "εἰς οἶκον" is generally translated as "in the house". Now there's an even better reason for Believing that "at home" is original than Metzger gives and we apparently will have to wait for Ehrancyman to give it when he completely Edits Metzger's Textual Commentary.

An important Christian Doctrine is that the Gospels are complete History and not to any extent Legend/Myth. With the Translation "at home" Jesus' Home is located at Capernaum. Other places in the Gospels seem to say that Jesus' home was Nazareth. To the extent there is Confusion in the Gospels over an important fact concerning Jesus, such as Where his home was, this gives the appearence of Legend/Myth rather than History.


Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth

JW:

Significant Variant #4:

Mark 1:3

φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight


And Metzger commentary:
" "

And NIGTC commentary:
" "

JW:
Thank God for Bart Ehranncyman who alerts me to this one and forces me to Edit my own Editing thread (I Am as bad as Eusebius!). Bezae and early Latin witness have added "God" to the end of the phrase, "make straight the paths of our God". Since John the Baptist is indicated to be the Speaker Jesus is indicated to be the Lord. Adding "God" at the end Implies/States that the Lord referred to (Jesus) is God. Ehrrancyman gives the Background/Setting here of "Orthodox" arguing around this time that Jesus was God and other Christian sects arguing that Jesus was not God such as the "Adoptionists" and "Separationists".

This helps Illustrate that there is far more Textual Variation than indicated by Standard Textual Critical Commentary and some of this concerns Significant Christian Doctrine. In:

The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture



Ehranncyman introduces a Term I have never heard before, "Methodology", to give Weight to his Textual Variation observations. If Motivation and Provenance (Location) can be established than additional weight can be given to the Direction of Textual Change (What was Likely Original). In the Book Ehranncyman limits the Context of Textual Change to known Controversy between "Orthodox" and Non-Orthodox Christianity in the early centuries before Important Christian Doctrine was Defined and Fixed. The entire book than is a Testament that Christian Bible Textual Variation affects Significant Christian Doctrine.

In the Process Ehrrancyman Identifies Some of the basic questions concerning any Type of Evidence:

Who: "Orthodox Christianity" as a Group. A Few Individual Fathers Identified.

What: Important Doctrine. The above illustrates the Doctrine of Jesus being God.

Where: Undetermined.

When: The early centuries. During and relatively shortly after the related controversies.

Why: To support Orthodox views.

How: Citation and Preservation of supporting manuscripts as a Group. Undetermined at individual manuscript level.


Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Agenda07

Some of the Greek letters aren't displaying properly, does anyone here know where I could download a Greek alphabet pack? I searched google but without success. Thanks.

JoeWallack

You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth

JW:

Significant Variant #5:

Mark 1:10

καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν

"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him" (ASV)


And Metzger commentary:
" "


JW:
Thank God again for Bet Ehranncyman who alerts me to this one and forces me to Edit my own Editing thread (I Am as bad as Eusebius!). The Key
word here is "εἰς" translated above as "upon". However, the common meaning of "εἰς" is "unto" or "into". Earlier witness tends to have "εἰς". Later witness tends to have "επἰ", "upon".

"Into" supports the Separationist view that Jesus was not Jesus until God's Spirit went into him at the Baptism. Ehrrancyman gives the Background/Setting here of "Orthodox" arguing around this time that Jesus was God and other Christian sects arguing that Jesus was not God such as the "Separationists", who could use 1:10 as Ammanition that Jesus was just a man before the Baptism and it was the Spirit of God received at the baptism which gave Jesus power.

Again this helps Illustrate that there is far more Textual Variation than indicated by Standard Textual Critical Commentary and some of this concerns Significant Christian Doctrine. The standard Metzger "critical" commentary is seriously flawed as it has already been Edited to remove Textual Variation not considered significant by mainstream Christianity. There should be a comprehensive Textual Critical Commentary that includes ALL Potentially Significant variation. Bart?

The NIGTC, probably the best available Critical commentary on "Mark", identifies the unto/upon variation but labels "unto" "nonsense" because it's unsupported by the rest of the Text. Nonsense! "Mark":

1) Has no special birth.

2) No Jesus' stories before the Baptism.

3) God declares at Baptism that Jesus is his son.

4) Is full of exorcisms of spirits.

5) Jesus loses his spirit at the end.

All supporting the Separationist view that God's Spirit went into Jesus at baptism. Meanwhile we continue to have Dishonest Christian Bible scholarship 2,000 years after the fiction, such as Daniel Wallace, claiming that for the most part, Ehranncyman's book, does not identify Textual variation affecting Significant Christian Doctrine.


Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth

JW:

Significant Variant #6:

Mark 1:34

καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις καὶ δαιμόνια πολλὰ ἐξέβαλεν καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν λαλεῖν τὰ δαιμόνια ὅτι ᾔδεισαν αὐτόν

"And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many demons; and he suffered not the demons to speak, because they knew him. (ASV)"


And Metzger commentary:
"1.34 αὐτόν {A}
It is clear that Mark terminated the sentence with αὐτόν and that copyists made various additions, derived probably from the parallel in Lk 4.41 (ὅτι ᾔδεισαν τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι). If any one of the longer readings had been original in Mark, there is no reason why it should have been altered or eliminated entirely."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
Once again Thank God for Bet Ehranncyman who alerts me to this one and forces me to Edit my own Editing thread (I Am as bad as Eusebius!). The phrase added by the "Orthodox" here to some manuscripts of "Mark" is:

"Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι"

following the Lukan parallel. Now instead of "they knew him" it's "they knew he was the Christ".

This also involves the "Separationist" question. Separationists saw "Mark's" Jesus as two distinct parts, the Spiritual part, which was received from God at Baptism, and the Human part. "Mark" as originally written at 1:34 Emphasizes that the Evil Spirits recognized the Good Spirit which supports the Separationist viewpoint. By adding "they knew he was the Christ" this takes the emphasis away from the Spirit's issue and makes it a Christological issue.

And while we're at it, here's some Spiritual Food for thought for PJ:

Mark 14: (ASV)
"And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."


JW:
How can bread be Jesus' body and wine his blood if he's human?



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

You Put The Words Right Into My Mouth

JW:

Significant Variant #11:

Mark 2:7

τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ βλασφημεῖ τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός

"Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, [even] God? (ASV)"


And Metzger commentary:
" "


And NIGTC commentary:
" "


JW:
Once again Thank God for Bet Ehranncyman who alerts me to this one and forces me to Edit my own Editing thread (I Am as bad as Eusebius!). Codex Bezae, an Oldie and a Goodie lacks "εἷς", "one", for the phrase "εἷς ὁ θεός", "one God".

The Motivation for the Change could be Patripassionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassionism

which is the Belief that Jesus was the Father God. When "Mark's" Jesus asks the rhetorical question, "who can forgive sins but one God?" The use of "one" here was Ammunition for the Patripassionistas to argue that qualifying that only "one" God/Divine Creature could Forgive meant that Jesus and The Father were the Same. Exorcism of the "one" here reduces the caliber of the Ammo. I tell you the Truth though, this one is weak as even without "one" there would still be an Implication that Jesus is the same as the Father, "who can forgive sins but God?".

It does though once again illustrate a need for a Textual Commentary on the Christian Bible in place of Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Christian Bible (a Complete one). Guess I should have been nicer to (the) one Mr. Carlson. Julian?



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Julian

Is this directed at me? With all the references around BC&H these days to that apostate fellow, I get confused. Nonetheless, I will give some comment on Mark 2:7 even if it is unasked for. So there.

The apparati I have handy do not show the omission of εις from D (05). So I decided to take a look at the Bezae manuscript facsimile directly. Unfortunately, those pages seem to be down at the moment (or my company is blocking that port). If http://alpha.reltech.org:8083/cgi-bi...ml/BibleMSS/U5 is working for everybody else then you can check out the passage for yourselves. So I will restrict my comments to the simple observation that ει μη εις ο θεος really isn't all that unusual of a construct in Greek as far as I know. In English it doesn't translate well as we would need to add a word or a colon in order to make it read better, like except one [namely] God. Instead of the word namely we could have put in a colon. If εις is absent from D then it would simply read except God. In my mind, not a huge difference, since θεος still appears as singular. I am sure that there is a reason why θεος appears in the nominative but I cannot say at the moment why that would be true when εις is removed.

Julian