The "son of God" missing at the start has always been perplexing to me. Although it's not the end of the world if that phrase is not original, I do think it changes the tone of the opening of Mark if the phrase is not original. It doesn't seem natural to me that this phrase could have been added later. (So many so many books in the background. I love a good printed physical book, but these days I would honestly just prefer to search in Logos or Accordance :) )
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
The "son of God" missing at the start has always been perplexing to me. Although it's not the end of the world if that phrase is not original, I do think it changes the tone of the opening of Mark if the phrase is not original. It doesn't seem natural to me that this phrase could have been added later.
(So many so many books in the background. I love a good printed physical book, but these days I would honestly just prefer to search in Logos or Accordance :) )
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?