https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10156331011940746
JW:
The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations Peter M. Head Cambridge University
43. IHSOUS[Jesus]: This is consistently deployed (with one interesting exception), using a two letter
form of the nomen sacrum: 1.1, 9, 14, 17, 24, 25; 2.5, 7, 15, 17, 19; 3.7; 5.6, 7, 15, 20, 21, 27, 30,
16
36; 6.4, 6, 30; 8.17, 27; 9.2, 4, 5, 8, 23, 25, 27, 39; 10.5, 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 32, 38, 39, 42,
47 (2x), 49, 50, 51, 52; 11.6, 7, 22, 29, 33; 12.17, 24, 29, 34, 35; 13.2, 5; 14.6, 18, 27, 30, 48, 53,
55, 60, 61, 62, 67, 72; 15.1, 5, 15, 34, 37, 43. The exception to this rule is the last occurrence in
Mark, 16.6: ‘you seek Jesus of Nazareth’, where the word is written out in full.26
...
26 This is the work of the scribe D who wrote the replacement leaf, from Mark 14.54 to the end
of Mark; but the full form in 16.6 follows twelve contracted ones from the same pen.
The offending verse:
16
6. And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!
For those who need points sharply explained it looks like GMark is the original Gospel narrative and is Separationist:
Who'sonfirst? GMark As Separationist
After The Spirit has left that man:
5:37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
There are two invocations of "Jesus" referring to dead Jesus. 16:6 then refers to live Jesus. I find it [understatement]interesting[/understatement] that Sinaiticus, as good a witness as we have to the original Gospel narrative, supports the possibility that Sinaiticus reflects original wording here and the author's intent was to indicate that live Jesus, without The Spirit, was no longer divine.
It's generally thought that the original Gospels did not have Nomina Sacra, they are a later invention, but God knows. Note that Sinaiticus also says Nazareth was in Judea which is supported by early Patristics.
Peter Head is an outstanding scholar for an Evangelical, thus his professional position is inversely related to his scholarship. Note in his article other interesting, not well known observations of Sinaiticus, especially the use of symbols for numbers (especially, especially, "12". MJ look out!).
Textual Criticism in the usual apparatus is exponentially understated. Case in point the above. Nomina Sacra variation. Assumed unimportant because it could not possibly be original because, because...
Everyone welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.
Bonus material for Solo: Note the related textual variation here:
Laparola
16:6 (Münster)
τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν] Byz ς WH
omit[Nazareth]] א*[Sinaiticus] D[Bezae] itd[Old latin]
Evidence that "Nazareth" is not original to 16:6. Based on:
Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings
typical support for a possibly original difficult reading (also supports "Nazareth" as unoriginal in 1:9 (spin, look out!)).
Joseph
SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
The New Porphyry