The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)
A certain manuscript copy omits the expression of ‘son of God’ that we have dealt with yesterday. Might be for that reason, Luther translated verse 1 in this way. “This is book is the beginning the gospel about Jesus Christ.” Likewise we don’t need to mention the reason of content difference of the Bible, though it took very small portion, according to manuscript copy. And that not even the same manuscript copy has been found among thousands of copies. However, we can drift from this subject to another after confirming two points based on such objective fact that everybody should recognize. First, the verbal inspiration of the Bible doesn’t have any persuasive power. We have a difficulty to make judge the original manuscript copy among many copies that has minor varies. Moreover, the contention that the Bible is complete word of God in verbal level is not true faith but a religious fanaticism or a self-opinionated person for we don’t have the original copy now. Second, the common opinion of the Bible scholars who studied various manuscript copy comparative way is that the Old and New Testament we are using now is almost closed to the original. This is rightly our reality. The Bible we Christians believe today as the word of God is though not the original copy but is second to the original.
Let’s ask a little detail. Why is the phase ‘son of God’ missed in certain copy? If we want to deal this matter in real earnest we may write a book. We not only have to look into the matter how the conception of son of God was treated in Egypt civilization, Mesopotamia civilization, and furthermore in the Old Testament but also we have to try to find out what happened in the process of editing Mark’s gospel. We leave such matter to the special scholars and for us the following answer is enough to get our needy. The statement as ‘son of God’ is not a decisive fact in Mark’s gospel. It means this term prescribe the character of Mark’s on the whole. However, the foundation of Mark’s gospel doesn’t receive any damage.
The foundation of Mark’s gospel is ‘Jesus Christ’. ‘Son of God’ is a phrase to qualify ‘Jesus Christ’. If Jesus Christ is the subject then son of God is the predicate. It doesn’t mean that the term of ‘Son of God’ is unnecessary. It is necessary but not decisive. The early Christian community borrowed the term of ‘Son of God’ in order to explain ‘Jesus Christ’. However, a calligrapher of the copy boldly omitted it. The reason of his omission of ‘Son of God’ in his copy was probably to reveal Jesus Christ more.
Do we need such discernment in our faith life today, the discernment to distinguish a constant and a variable? However, generally necessary but not an absolute often becomes the major in our faith life. Church organization and its administration, visiting and various meeting, social service and welfare activity and etc are some of this. It should stay in the place of subordinate in church life though these are really necessary and valuable facts for the organization. Otherwise the pastors may be burnt out soon.
Let’s ask a little detail. Why is the phase ‘son of God’ missed in certain copy? If we want to deal this matter in real earnest we may write a book. We not only have to look into the matter how the conception of son of God was treated in Egypt civilization, Mesopotamia civilization, and furthermore in the Old Testament but also we have to try to find out what happened in the process of editing Mark’s gospel. We leave such matter to the special scholars and for us the following answer is enough to get our needy. The statement as ‘son of God’ is not a decisive fact in Mark’s gospel. It means this term prescribe the character of Mark’s on the whole. However, the foundation of Mark’s gospel doesn’t receive any damage.
The foundation of Mark’s gospel is ‘Jesus Christ’. ‘Son of God’ is a phrase to qualify ‘Jesus Christ’. If Jesus Christ is the subject then son of God is the predicate. It doesn’t mean that the term of ‘Son of God’ is unnecessary. It is necessary but not decisive. The early Christian community borrowed the term of ‘Son of God’ in order to explain ‘Jesus Christ’. However, a calligrapher of the copy boldly omitted it. The reason of his omission of ‘Son of God’ in his copy was probably to reveal Jesus Christ more.
Do we need such discernment in our faith life today, the discernment to distinguish a constant and a variable? However, generally necessary but not an absolute often becomes the major in our faith life. Church organization and its administration, visiting and various meeting, social service and welfare activity and etc are some of this. It should stay in the place of subordinate in church life though these are really necessary and valuable facts for the organization. Otherwise the pastors may be burnt out soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment