- Sep 20 9:01 AM1. Mk 1:1 (cf. NA27)
(1) Ie:sou Christou huiou theou Sinatiticus(1)
B D L W 2427 pc latt sy co; Irlat
(2) Ie:sou Christou tou theou A f1 f13 33 Byz
(3) Ie:sou Christou huiou tou kuriou 1241
(4) Ie:sou Christou
Sinatiticus (original) Theta 28. l 2211 pc sa(ms); Or
(5) - Ir
i. (3) which is a singular reading may be secondary.
ii. (5) has weak external evidence, and thus seems to be secondary.
The homoeoteleution -ou could have caused the omission.
iii. The addition of huiou theou could have been motivated by
theological reason or it could be an explanation of Christou. The
intentional omission of it by Christian scribes, however, is
difficult to explain.
iv. Huiou theou could have been omitted by the homoeoteleution -ou,
but such an omission is not expected in the very beginning of copying
v. Even though huiou theou of (1) is possible in Marcan style (see Mk
15:39), Mk adds tou before theou elsewhere except Mk 15:39.
vi. tou theou in (2) seems to be an assimilation to Marcan usage in
vii. Even though (1) is supported by the Proto-Alexandrian MSS and
the Western text type (WesT), the external evidnece of (4) may not
be easily neglected.
(conlusion) Consideration of interal evidence and external evidence
indicates that (4) is more probably original than (1).