On another website a writer by the name of Robert started this thread and his first topic was Mark 1.1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
He believes "Son of God" was added by a scribe because this phrase is not included in the following manuscripts.
Codex Aleph, Codex Thelan , Palistinean Syriac , Sahidic Coptic,
Armenian and Georgian texts.
Also he says that this ommision was attested by Ireneus,Origen and Jerome.
Robert is a believer and acknowledges that the phrase "Son of God" is used elsewhere in Mark. I'm not familiar with the history or chronology of the manuscripts like if one ommitted "Son of God" and the others copied the ommision or not.
One thing that bothers me is that Mark 1.3 "Prepare the way for the Lord." If you leave out "Son of God" how would the reader really know that Jesus Christ is the Lord because Christ was not at that time understood to be the Lord.
If Steve or anyone else could reply i would appreciate it.
NT Textual Variants
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
NT Textual Variants
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Evangelion
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
- Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)
Re: NT Textual Variants
The words are only missing from a handful of texts; all others contain them.STEVE7150 wrote:On another website a writer by the name of Robert started this thread and his first topic was Mark 1.1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
He believes "Son of God" was added by a scribe because this phrase is not included in the following manuscripts.
Codex Aleph, Codex Thelan , Palistinean Syriac , Sahidic Coptic,
Armenian and Georgian texts.
Also he says that this ommision was attested by Ireneus,Origen and Jerome.
Robert is a believer and acknowledges that the phrase "Son of God" is used elsewhere in Mark. I'm not familiar with the history or chronology of the manuscripts like if one ommitted "Son of God" and the others copied the ommision or not.
One thing that bothers me is that Mark 1.3 "Prepare the way for the Lord." If you leave out "Son of God" how would the reader really know that Jesus Christ is the Lord because Christ was not at that time understood to be the Lord.
If Steve or anyone else could reply i would appreciate it.
The editors of the NET Bible argue in favour of their authenticity.
Click here to read the relevant footnotes.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Thanks for your answer Soren.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I possess transripts of all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament up to the year 300. I'm sorry to say that none of them contain the first three chapters of Mark.
Robert is correct about Ireneus,Origen and Jerome. That, of course, doesn't prove that it was not in the original. Even if it isn't, it's not a big deal. There are plenty of other scriptures which attest that He is the Son of God.
Robert is correct about Ireneus,Origen and Jerome. That, of course, doesn't prove that it was not in the original. Even if it isn't, it's not a big deal. There are plenty of other scriptures which attest that He is the Son of God.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald