Me or him? That is my question.


I spent way too many hours trying to circle and connect text in the first chapter of Mark to give some cohesiveness to a few ideas in the Gospel of Mark. I tried it in word. I tried it in publisher. I tried it in paint. I failed miserably. It was the font's fault. Eventually I gave up and decided that it might be wholesome to print it off and mark it up with a pen and ink; sort of a higher text re-visitation of the scribes etc. who went before me and whose job has made mine both enjoyable and difficult.

In that Spirit, I decided to revisit the work of my forerunners, and maybe evaluate their work a little. Criticism never hurt anyone. Besides, I'd been doing some textual work on the first chapter of Mark, and my notes mentioned something about an original revision to the text of Mark 1:1 on Codex Sinaiticus.. the big one. Not that Mark changed his mind, but that one of the scribes copying from some older manuscript, that we don't have, onto what we now know as Sinaiticus made a mistake, an omission even, and instead of ripping up the whole page and starting again, like we've all been told they used to do, he just added his omission on top in little scribbly letters; like we do. Well, the lazier among us anyway (guilty as charged). So I've included the opening lines of Mark 1:1, the same text that is shown above, except above I have muddled a word processed critical text (that includes far more influence than just Sinaiticus) and below I've shown n 1800 year old version of the same thing (Sinaiticus, I think I've mentioned that, right?), no doubt produced by some second century graduate student trying to make his way through Mark.
So, I repeat my question, which one is better? It's all up to you now folks, and remember, Jesus is watching, and the guy who wrote the old one is too dead to have his feelings hurt.