At the end of Mark 1:1, the NRSV has "Son of God," as does KJV, NKJV, Moffatt, T. Wright, RSV, JB, NEB, REB, CEV, TEV, NIV, and even CEB. Two other individual translators, R. Lattimore and D. B. Hart, do not, and neither, I see, does the new NRSVue. Whether this phrase is included or not has to do with whether the translators believe the ancient manuscripts that include it are likely to be older than the ones that do not. Its inclusion is a matter of scholarly debate, which is why almost all translations have some kind of footnote at Mark 1:1 indicating this.
Critical editions of the Greek New Testament list and rate the different ancient manuscripts that do and don't include the phrase in question. (It gets a "C" rating, which means it could go either way, and is included in the main text, but in brackets.) They do this for the thousands of variations that exist in ancient copies of the New Testament writings.
But this very method, that we take for granted, is based, for one thing, on the assumption that earlier is always better. But that is at least questionable, even if we could determine the earliest with any conclusiveness. Which we can't. When we do attempt to extract or hypothesize the "original" version of the text (or anything!) we do not end up with the actual, verified original, but just another new thing. The fact is that the complete Greek text recommended by the 28th edition of Nestle-Aland never existed in the ancient world.
Actually, this approach gives us a lot of new things, as we see in the plethora of translations all postulating their own assessments of the oldest, most authentic Greek text. (Often you find the translators' strategy stated in the forward to the Bible. And this is all just deciding what to translate. The actual translating is another whole thing!)
In such a hermeneutical and economic environment, the translators' work is necessarily influenced if not determined by political and marketing considerations. Questions like, "Who is funding the translation?" and "Whom do they hope will buy it?" and so on, are unavoidable.
The development of a text like the Bible over time happens organically, which is to say, according to haphazard historical circumstances. The additions and other changes made to a text across the centuries, that some like to darkly refer to as "corruption" or "misquoting," would have occurred along the way in a lot of different circumstantial ways. Often they are unintentional and rarely are they pernicious. In the case of Mark 1:1, perhaps some overzealous scribe added a pious marginal note, "Son of God," which then got included in subsequent copies. Who knows?
The decisions about which versions to keep or which readings were prioritized were originally made by communities of Christians. They first had to answer questions that are even prior to these about what text to incorporate. Like: What is the Bible for, anyway? And: Whose book is it?
The Bible, as "the unique and authoritative witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ," functions as the primary and essential guide for the gathering of the people who seek to follow him. It therefore belongs to the Church, which understands itself to be his Body, animated by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the Church's book, the Church's story. Individual Christians receive it from and through the Church; it is interpreted in and by the Church. The Church decided which books were included; the Church sponsored and authorized its publication. Indeed, for 1500 years the only way an ordinary Christian encountered the Bible was by hearing it read aloud in corporate worship.
Therefore, my point is that it may be time for the Church to reconsider the criteria used for determining textual and translation issues regarding the Bible. Mainly, we need to recognize that there are factors other than how old a text is that are relevant and essential. Especially since much of the time we can't know which text is older anyway; we can only guess, and since this strategy necessarily turns the text over to specialists, many of whom may not be invested in the mission of the Church or discipleship of Jesus Christ.
Is some theorized but unobtainable "original" text the most authentic one? Are our attempts at identifying the oldest text giving us the best and most authentic version? Or might we consider some other way of identifying "authenticity"? What if we decided that the most authentic text is the one most read, used, and developed by the Church over time? What if we decided that the current state of historical development is the best text for us?
What if we took into account what the Church needs today, which is to say, asked what supports discipleship and mission? Frankly, I suspect that this was the normal approach until just a few centuries ago.
We have learned a lot about the original texts of the Bible over that time. There have been all kinds of archaeological, philological, and other studies that have shed amazing light on the evolution of these ancient texts. It all needs to be taken into account. At the same time, in the end, the Church retains the freedom in the Spirit to decide the most faithful witness to her Lord, who, after all, is the Word.
+++++++
