Steven Avery
Administrator
Mark 1:1 (AV)
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Textus Receptus Bibles
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TextusReceptusBibles/permalink/1487685978018266/?comment_id=1488064207980443&comment_tracking={tn:R}
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
CBGM - an idea whose time has come ... and gone
https://www.facebook.com/groups/receivedtext/permalink/2149833115267060/
Evangelical Textual Criticism - Dec. 2017
An ‘Unanticipated Discussion of CBGM and P45
Peter Gurry
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2017/12/an-unanticipated-discussion-of-cbgm-and.html
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Textus Receptus Bibles
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TextusReceptusBibles/permalink/1487685978018266/?comment_id=1488064207980443&comment_tracking={tn:R}
Mark 1:1"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.
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"... 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) 1882 earlier version(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 Gabala,—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?
===============
Even the 1901 American edition only corrupted the margin.
1901 American Standard Version
https://archive.org/stream/AmericanStandardVersionNewTestament1900#page/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/emphasisedbiblen04roth#page/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/emphasisedbiblen04roth#page/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.
Facebook - The Received Text - Nov, 2018In 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/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.sravnika.narod.ru/sin/norov.htm&prev=search&fbclid=IwAR1cW_b3RwLT5Kvy9VX2HHzHNQhYhT4ufMxxuWjmEgsKUWcU42SUIqVAlWE
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.
CBGM - an idea whose time has come ... and gone
https://www.facebook.com/groups/receivedtext/permalink/2149833115267060/
Evangelical Textual Criticism - Dec. 2017
An ‘Unanticipated Discussion of CBGM and P45
Peter Gurry
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2017/12/an-unanticipated-discussion-of-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
Last edited: