Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Mark 1:1 - weighed not counted

  1. Default Mark 1:1 - weighed not counted

    Textus Receptus Bibles
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/TextusReceptusBibles/permalink/1487685978018266/?comment_id=1488064207980443&comment_tracking=%7Btn%3AR%7D


    "Manuscripts are weighed, not counted."
    How much do they weigh? Who counts?

    ...

    In modern textual criticism, one abbreviated corrupt Vaticanus is “weighed” as more than 1,000 historic pure Byzantine mss. It is weighed as far more than the words of early Christian leaders. A travesty, making no sense.

    The phrased “weighed not counted” is used as a preemptive catch-phrase simply in order to prevent an honest analysis of evidences.

    A verbal parlor trick, stating an obvious truism, accepted by all, as if it were some type of personal scientific revelation.

    To give a simple example, a citation of Cyprian in the 3rd century is weighed more than Zigabenus in the 10th. No big mystery there. Alexandrinus is clearly more significant than 2 or 3 minuscules. However, hundreds of minuscules point right back to the Ante-Nicene era, and weigh quite heavily.

    The phrase is only used to make the Hortian fog normative.
    Mark 1:1
    The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;


    In 1881, we get a typical Hortian absurdity confusion, showing how they can never find the Bible text:

    The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881)

    Westcott-Hort
    https://books.google.com/books?id=h6YsAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA23

    "... Omission, possibly Alexandrian, is certainly of very high antiquity. On the whole it seems to deserve the preference: but neither reading can be safely rejected."

    "neither reading can be safely rejected."

    You can never know the pure word of God.

    ===============

    Burgon in 1883 properly ripped the margin note in the decrepit 1881 Revision:

    Revision Revised (1883)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA132
    1882 earlier version
    https://books.google.com/books?id=vVgAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10


    (a) From the first verse of S. Mark’s Gospel we are informed that ‘Some ancient authorities omit the Son of God.' "Why are we not informed that every known uncial Copy except one of bad character,—every cursive but two,— every Version,—and the following Fathers,—all contain the precious clause: viz. Irenaues,—Porphyry,—Severianus of Cabala,—Cyril Alex.,—Victor Ant.,—and others,—besides Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins:—while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake?
    To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion. Why are we not rather told so?

    Name:  Burgon.jpg
Views: 47
Size:  81.2 KB

    ===============

    Even the 1901 American edition only corrupted the margin.

    1901 American Standard Version
    https://archive.org/stream/AmericanS...e/n81/mode/2up

    * Some ancient authorities omit "the Son of God"

    ===============

    The Emphasised of 1897 by Rotherdam (3rd edition) tries to follow Westcott-Hort
    https://archive.org/stream/emphasise...ge/n5/mode/2up


    And successfully shows their confusion, and is the first one in English that omits the words "Son of God".

    Emphasised Bible
    https://archive.org/stream/emphasise...ge/34/mode/2up
    "Or add (WH): "Son of God"


    =================

    This is one of many example how now the corruption versions are much worse today.

    Tischendorf, Uspensky, the GNT of Tisch and the 1860s I will try to do before the weekend.
    In the 1860s, here is Norov, shilling for Tischendorf,
    http://www.sravnika.narod.ru/sin/norov.htm

    responding to the Porphyry Uspensky attack on the Sinaiticus heresies. He says the corruption was not all that bad.

    1863
    https://translate.google.com/transla...WcU42SUIqVAlWE

    Uspensky
    2. "The entire Catholic Church reads from time immemorial" the first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel of Mark, thus: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ of the Son of God began." And in the Sinai manuscript, the words, the Son of God, are omitted. And so Christ is not the Son of God! It's amazing !!! "

    Norov
    Verily, for our part, we are perplexed, as Fr. the archimandrite could make such an astonishing conclusion from an obvious mistake, in the very same manuscript corrected in an ancient handwriting. Not to mention the fact that the essence of the entire Holy Gospel is based on the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is it really Fr. Archimandrite did not see on the same page Ev. St. Mark in the 2nd column, about the Baptism of Christ the Savior of the word: "And the voice was from heaven: Thou art my Son, my beloved, of the lesser favor." This is already the voice of God Himself, not the Evangelist.Of course, if the manuscript were heretical , this place would be predominantly distorted before others, and in Chapter IX of the same Gospel of Mark, in the narrative of the Transfiguration of the Savior, again the same voice of the Lord God Himself cries: "This is My beloved Son, Hear this." And in Chapter XV, Article 39 of the same Eu- khmank, the words of the centurion: "Verily, this man is this Son without God." We do not find it necessary to multiply quotations, but we can not but say that the interpretation of Father Archimandrite is an interpretation that has no shadow of foundation.
    Facebook - The Received Text - Nov, 2018
    CBGM - an idea whose time has come ... and gone
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/rece...9833115267060/

    Evangelical Textual Criticism - Dec. 2017
    An ‘Unanticipated Discussion of CBGM and P45
    Peter Gurry
    http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.b...-cbgm-and.html

    Peter Head
    https://books.google.com/books?id=OAuJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA305

    Metzger was just about as confused as Hort above:

    indicating that, in the opinion of the editors, “there is a considerable degree
    of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading”;6

  2. Default

    Burgon, with Edward Miller editing, offers a major section:

    The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established (1896)
    John William Burgon
    https://books.google.com/books?id=ajQ1AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA279
    p. 279-286

    Eberhard Nestle tried to give a response to the overwhelming evidence,
    he does make a correction by referencing the Armenian version.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=Pr4QAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA101

    Daniel J. Wood on Facebook
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/Text...7395881380609/
    Part 2
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/Text...7401354713395/

    Nazaroo
    Tuesday, October 18, 2011
    Tommy Wasserman on Mark 1:1 - homoeoteleuton
    http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2...n-mark-11.html

    Tommy Wasserman has examined Mark 1:1 closely, and comes to the conclusion that it is a probable omission due to homoeoteleuton.


    ...

    The Evangelical TC Blog has linked to his audio lecture below:

    Tommy's excellent presentation on the text of Mark 1.1 is now available in audio via the CSCO website (where it is also described as argued persuasively):

    Tommy Wasserman, ‘The “Son of God” was in the Beginning,’ lecture (44min)
    Wasserman, Question and Answer, (28min)
    The “Son of God” Was in the Beginning (Mk 1:1)
    Tommy Wasserman
    Lund University
    SBL International Meeting 2010
    https://app.box.com/s/44fztqni4vekdznvjih5

    Wasserman, Tommy. “The Son of God was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1).“ Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011): 20-50
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280666540_The_%27Son_of_God%27_was_in_the_Beginnin g_Mark_11
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2463786...n_tab_contents (text quoted by Heiser)


    Bart Ehrman vs. the Son of God in Mark 1:1 – A Response (2011)
    Michael S. Heiser
    http://drmsh.com/a-new-testament-tex...abble-readers/

    Wasserman’s conclusion reads as follows:

    The external evidence clearly favours the inclusion of uios theos [“son of God”] in Mark 1:1. The long reading has the earliest and strongest support by manuscripts, as well as versional and patristic witnesses and the text-types to which the witnesses have traditionally been assigned. The short reading has early and widespread, but much weaker, support. The internal evidence, to which the defenders of the short reading have normally appealed, is actually ambiguous. The traditional intrinsic argument from Markan style in favour of the long reading is possibly balanced by the corresponding possibility of a stylistic scribal addition.

    In regard to transcriptional probability, an early accidental omission, even in the opening of a book, cannot be ruled out, since this apparently happened on several occasions in the history of transmission in Mark 1:1 and elsewhere. This argument, however, is balanced by the general tendency to expand book titles as well as divine names and titles. In conclusion, the balance of probabilities favours the long reading in Mark 1:1—the ‘Son of God’ was indeed in the beginning.

  3. Default

    NET Bible
    https://netbible.org/bible/Mark+1

    sn The first verse of Mark’s Gospel appears to function as a title: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is not certain, however, whether Mark intended it to refer to the entire Gospel, to the ministry of John the Baptist, or through the use of the term beginning (ἀρχή, archē) to allude to Genesis 1:1 (in the Greek Bible, LXX). The most likely option is that the statement as a whole is an allusion to Genesis 1:1 and that Mark is saying that with the “good news” of the coming of Christ, God is commencing a “new beginning.” tc א* Θ 28 l2211 pc sa Or lack υἱοῦ θεοῦ (huiou theou, “son of God”), while virtually all the rest of the witnesses have the words (A ƒ 33 M also have τοῦ [tou] before θεοῦ), so the evidence seems to argue for the authenticity of the words. Most likely, the words were omitted by accident in some witnesses, since the last four words of v. 1, in uncial script, would have looked like this: iu_c_r_u_u_u_q_u_. With all the successive upsilons an accidental deletion is likely. Further, the inclusion of υἱοῦ θεοῦ here finds its complement in 15:39, where the centurion claims that Jesus was υἱὸς θεοῦ (huios theou, “son of God”). Even though א is in general one of the best NT mss, its testimony is not quite as preeminent in this situation. There are several other instances in which it breaks up chains of genitives ending in ου (cf., e.g., Acts 28:31; Col 2:2; Heb 12:2; Rev 12:14; 15:7; 22:1), showing that there is a significantly higher possibility of accidental scribal omission in a case like this. This christological inclusio parallels both Matthew (“Immanuel…God with us” in 1:23/“I am with you” in 28:20) and John (“the Word was God” in 1:1/“My Lord and my God” in 20:28), probably reflecting nascent christological development and articulation.

  4. Default

    To find the depth of convolution behind the CBGM we should go to the Mark 1:1 section

    A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (2017)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=0ls8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA46
    p. 46-50

    However, it does get the easy-peasy verse right.

    Any verse that is ultra-minority in both Greek and Latin is highly unlikely to be original. If it has coherence, it is simply a localized piddle corruption. If it does not have coherence then it is a little wider in the textlines (an argument used by Hortians).

    The coherence element is secondary. An ultra-minority piddle corruption falls whichever way you look.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •