Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mark 1, "Son of God"

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Mark 1, "Son of God"

    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.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Do you have any evidence either way, or are you just spitballing?
    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment

    • #3
      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.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        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.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          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.

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
            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.
            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              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-...first-century/

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                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-...first-century/
                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.
                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment

                • #9
                  Not a single citation to check the information against: Making an assessment on that sort of basis is kind of difficult.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                    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/2463786...n_tab_contents

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

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by psstein View Post
                      It's debated as to whether or not it's a later addition.

                      https://www.jstor.org/stable/2463786...n_tab_contents

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

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                      Working...
                      X