outhouse

Parallels

Son of god, a term from Augustus used to describe his own divinity after claiming his dad Caesar reincarnated as god after a event in the sky.

The star on Augustus coin used in the birth tales for the star of Bethlehem

Jesus speaking in fictional large crowds the way Augustus did in real life. Sermon on the mount.

for starters

Chili

Not here to defend Augustus, but it is called blue blood and is the basis for royalty, with knighthood the first step towards that direction.

In case you wonder, blue blood was quite common back then, but that was before the Gutenberg yeast factory got going.

JoeWallack

JW:
Following is an image of Mark 1:1 from Sinaiticus:

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manusc...r&zoomSlider=0

[IMG][/IMG]

Note that the Nomina Sacra for "Jesus" "ΙΥ" (with the line above the Y) is the 3rd and 4th characters from the left on the second line. The Nomina Sacra for "Christ" "XΥ" (with the line above the Y) is the 5th and 6th characters from the left on the second line. The addition here is the Nomina Sacra for "son (of) God" which is "ΥΥ" (son) and "ΘΥ" (God) with lines above the second letter Ys and is written in between lines 1 and 2 right after the Nomina sacra of the regular text.

The question of course is who wrote the between the lines (so to speak) "son (of) God"? At one extreme it might have been the original author. At another extreme it might have been a much later editor.

The related question is once you have evaluated the who, how do you weigh it as evidence for addition or originality? The between the lines here is not mentioned by Ehrman in his conclusion of addition in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, presumably because he does not consider it a key piece of evidence. On the other hand Daniel Wallace http://bible.org/article/does-mark-1...-critical-note identifies the who as "the first corrector" and writes:

I believe that the current detailed study regarding the possible who is Jongkind:

Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus

who concludes the who is the related Scriptorium. This conclusion has no direct evidence to support it. Maybe someone here can translate how Jongkind gets to his conclusion. Andrew? (The related Wikipedia has a false attribution to Metzger).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

tanya

Thanks Joe, for patiently explaining this to me.

Andrew had tried, post 9, to let me understand, but I completely missed the two pairs of tiny symbols written above the second line of text.

Sure, Joe, you are correct, the yy and theta y, both pairs with a single horizontal line atop one y, surely indicate, (exactly as Andrew had patiently explained to me, but I simply didn't look properly at the magnified text): symbols meant to represent the Greek words: υιου του θεου (son of God).

Andrew had suggested, and I had disputed his conclusion, that the change was made, at the scriptorium, before the Codex had been shipped out....

I have no idea how this could be determined without performing spectroscopy on the respective ink samples. Thanks again Joe.

Chili

That is very very simple, just let logic do it's thing.

If the good news is that long awaited son has arrived, he must be here to make that known, and if Mark's Jesus was not It, who put him up to It?

It gets funnier yet if this one goes to hell: how can it be that the tragedy is known before the comedy is here?

Then wait, we're not done with this, because when the real one came they denied him anyway, and so now: we have two opposites and the good one is denied by nearly all, and the bad is venerated by mostly all as the first and therefore with significance.

avi

Have the four Nomina Sacra characters been analyzed by handwriting experts, to render an opinion as to their original date of insertion?

If you look at the text, beneath the inserted four characters, one reads:
"kappa", "alpha", "theta"
That "theta" is rather unique, with an open circle, almost as if written as two hemicircles. I cannot discriminate the inserted text, it is too small, but, what do the paleaographers write about it?
I am hung up on the issue of "son of god". For such an important theological principal, one would have thought that an inadvertent omission would be met with a demand to redo the first page.....

I think it is too important, to have been omitted on a whim, but I am keen to learn what C.H. Roberts or Frederick Kenyon thought about these four characters?

andrewcriddle

Hi Joe

The addition of Son of God in Sinaiticus is consistently listed in the editions as a contemporaneous correction but I have not been able to find an explicit analysis.

My best guess is that it is based on the general theory of the history of corrections to Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus was corrected quite heavily at the time and then apparently not corrected again until several centuries later. The addition of Son of God IIUC resembles the contemporaneous corrections rather than the much later ones. It would be formally possible that the addition of Son of God was a one off correction made 50 years after the copying of Sinaiticus by a corrector who did little or nothing else, but this seems an unnecessarily complicated suggestion.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
Following is an image of Mark 1:1 from Codex Vaticanus:

http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_024a.jpg



In Textual Criticism Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the two star witnesses.

The offending Mark 1:1 is at the start of the third column. Note that the Nomina Sacra for "Jesus" "ΙΥ" (with the line above and between the I and the Y) is the 1st and 2nd characters from the left on the second line. The Nomina Sacra for "Christ" "XΥ" (with the line above and between the X and the Y) is the 3rd and 4th characters from the left on the second line. Very similar to Sinaiticus. For the "son (of) God" though, Vaticanus follows in line but spells out "son (of) "ΥIOΥ" and than follows with the Nomina Sacra "ΘΥ" (God).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

outhouse

How about Gmark as a whole competing the Emporers divinity with jesus divinity, both known as the "son of god"

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's take a closer look at the credentials of the manuscript evidence for omission of "son of God":

Wieland Willker's:

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

1) 01* = Sinaiticus c. 340 Generally considered the most authoritative manuscript.

2) Q = Codex Koridethi c. 850 Generally considered the best representative of the Caesarean text type.

3) 28C = Manuscript 28 http://www.skypoint.com/members/walt...1-500.html#m28 original c. 1050

4) pc9 = Caesarean manuscripts (9)

5) L2211 = Latin 2211

6) sams, arm = Armenian

7) geo1 = Georgian (1)

8) Sy-Pal pc = Palestinian

9) 1555* = Western text

Note the witnesses here that show omission as the original reading which was subsequently edited:

Sinaiticus

582*

820*

1555*

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