quote:
Originally posted by RustyShackelford
You guys really need to stop swallowing the BS your philosophy professors feeds you whole.......once again, I flipped open my Bible to Mark, and, once again, I didn't have to get outside of the first chapter to prove this claim incorrect.......in fact, I didn't even have to get out of the first VERSE.......
Mark 1:1. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
Hello RustyShackelford,
I don't intend, at this point, to argue the claim made here one way or the other. But, as it happens, the example you provided above is one of those places where a bit more care should be taken.
Although the phrase, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ
, the Son of God." is found in the majority of our extant manuscripts, there are a number of early important witnesses that lack the (possibly appended) phrase, "
the Son of God ".
Early manuscript witnesses that lack the "
the Son of God " phrase include Sinaiticus, O, 28c, 1555, syr(p) arm geo, and Origen (both in his commentary written in Alexandria and in
Contra Celsum).
As Bart Ehrman remarks, ". . . this is not a confluence of witnesses to be trifled with."
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D.Ehrman, pgg. 72-73, Oxford Univ. Press, New York/Oxford, 1993.
So, as far as your example goes, the "Son of God" inclusion in Mark 1:1 holds somewhat less than a 100% guarantee of being original.
IMO, and based on this same type of study regarding much of the early manuscript evidence, there is a good argument to be made for the foremost adoptionist position; (i.e., that Jesus was originally thought to have been adopted as the Son of God at his baptism).
Just thought I'd mention it,
Amlodhi
™ Version 4.2