PDA

View Full Version : Mark 1, "Son of God"



Christian3
06-06-2017, 02:59 PM
Mark 1: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Question: Is "the Son of God" supposed to be in Mark 1, or was it added later?

Thanks.

One Bad Pig
06-06-2017, 04:54 PM
Do you have any evidence either way, or are you just spitballing?

37818
06-06-2017, 07:09 PM
It is my understanding only one of the 4th century oldest mss omits it. Of the all the Greek mss that omit "Son of God" only 00.8 % of the mss. Of which 98.8 % of all the mss have the reading "Son of God." Including 4th and 5th century mss.

Christian3
06-06-2017, 09:18 PM
It is my understanding only one of the 4th century oldest mss omits it. Of the all the Greek mss that omit "Son of God" only 00.8 % of the mss. Of which 98.8 % of all the mss have the reading "Son of God." Including 4th and 5th century mss.

Thank you very much.

Christian3
06-06-2017, 09:20 PM
Do you have any evidence either way, or are you just spitballing?

I'm just trying to keep up with someone who LOVES Bart Erhman -- a Muslim, of course.

One Bad Pig
06-06-2017, 09:23 PM
I'm just trying to keep up with someone who LOVES Bart Erhman -- a Muslim, of course.

Ah, ok. Much ado about nothing, then. It's not as if that's the only location the phrase is found.

Christian3
06-06-2017, 09:59 PM
Ah, ok. Much ado about nothing, then. It's not as if that's the only location the phrase is found.

I pointed that out. We have to take the New Testament as a whole and Jesus being "the Son of God" is noted elsewhere in the New Testament.

Is there any update on this?

http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/

Clip:

Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!

Thanks.

One Bad Pig
06-07-2017, 12:36 AM
I pointed that out. We have to take the New Testament as a whole and Jesus being "the Son of God" is noted elsewhere in the New Testament.

Is there any update on this?

http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/

Clip:

Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!

Thanks.
I haven't seen any update. It is important to keep in mind that this will not be anything like a complete manuscript, but I agree - any first-century NT fragments would be big news.

tabibito
06-07-2017, 10:14 AM
Not a single citation to check the information against: Making an assessment on that sort of basis is kind of difficult.

psstein
06-08-2017, 10:59 PM
Mark 1: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Question: Is "the Son of God" supposed to be in Mark 1, or was it added later?

Thanks.

It's debated as to whether or not it's a later addition.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24637864?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It's omitted by Origen in the third century, but Irenaeus makes reference to it in the second.

hedrick
06-11-2017, 03:41 PM
It's debated as to whether or not it's a later addition.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24637864?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It's omitted by Origen in the third century, but Irenaeus makes reference to it in the second.

Right. If it were just one manuscript, I don't think there would be any question. Unfortunately it's a bit more than that. The evidence for omission is still not overwhelming, and many critical translations (e.g. NRSV) include it. Here's what the Word commentary says:

"“Son of God” (νἱοῦ θεοῦ) is missing in א* Θ 28 sypal Irengr,lat1/3 Orgr,lat but present in א1 B D L W pc latt sy co; Irenlat2 (A reads νἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ). Though broadly and strongly attested, its omission in several MSS provides basis for question. The internal argument favors the reading (cf. Pesch, 1:74, n. 1; Slomp, BT 28 [1977] 143–50). Not only does the evangelist use the title to introduce Jesus in 1:11 but the Roman centurion’s recognition of Jesus as “Son of God” in 15:39 offers the climactic counterpart of that revelation (cf. 1:11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61). Although a homoioteleuton at the beginning of a work seems unusual (Slomp, BT 28 [1977] 148), the series of six genitives and the normally abbreviated ΙΤ ΧΤ ΤΤ ΘΤ (Turner, JTS 26 [1925] 150) make this suggestion the best explanation for its absence."

Some commentaries say that this was regarded as the title, and titles were more subject to change than the rest of the text. Of course the question not theologically significant, since "son of God" is used elsewhere in Mark as a characteristic title for Jesus.