Featured Two principle NT issues.

You are welcome.

Also check out: Codex vaticanus (B) fac simile : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

Yes.

It has been "glitchy" recently. I think they are updating.

Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM

You can also view other manuscripts from this website.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Oops....didnt see you already posted it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. (NET)

Rather than justify the version we like, why not just dodge it?

 

The NET bible takes θεός to be in apposition μονογενής and ὁ ὤν to be apposition to θεός. Thus there are three descriptions of Jesus\Logos not two.

The Logos\Jesus is:
(1) the only one\unique one\only begotten
(2) who is Himself God (see John 1:1 "was fully God")
(3) the one who is in closest fellowship with the Father (see John 1:1 ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν = "the Word was with God")

The ESV understands it as two descriptions: "(1) the only God, (2) who is at the Father’s side."

 

With Jesus being called the μονογενης θεος here, it is arguably the strongest verse of Jesus' diety in light of the context of chapter 1. It also echos what John said in 1:1.

Jesus is the μονογενης God. Not only is He unique among all that walks on earth, but He is even unique among the Godhead.

There is absolutely no one like the μονογενης. Not even God the Father or God the Spirit. Once Jesus became fully man and fully God he became μονογενης.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I thought I would summarize the evidence thus far for John 1:18.

I μονογενὴς θεός
(1) Seven manuscripts have μονογενὴς θεός (with or without the article).

(2) Of the seven only two (i.e. 33 and L) date after the 5th century.
p66 - ca 200
p75 - ca 300
ℵ* - 4th
B - 4th
C - 5th

(3) In the Greek manuscripts tradition μονογενὴς θεός is the earliest reading.

(4) The Peshitta has "only-begotten God."

(5) Both μονογενὴς θεός and μονογενὴς υἱός find early and wide support in the Church fathers.

(6) In addition μονογενὴς θεός is also support by the Sahidic version (i.e. Coptic) and the Ethiopic version.

II μονογενὴς υἱός
(1) The vast majority of Greek manuscripts have μονογενὴς υἱός.

(2) This reading is supported by the Latin text.

(3) The earliest Greek manuscript to support μονογενὴς υἱός is A (5th century).

(4) W dates to the 5th century but the section containing John 1:18 dates to the 7th.

(5) As stated above both μονογενὴς θεός and μονογενὴς υἱός find early and wide support in the Church fathers.

 

I could not agree more. As I point out in post 85 (in regard to the NET Bible translation):

The Logos\Jesus is:
(1) the only one\unique one\only begotten
(2) who is Himself God (see John 1:1 "was fully God")
(3) the one who is in closest fellowship with the Father (see John 1:1 ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν = "the Word was with God")

I believe the thought and content is parallel with John 1:1.

 

Did you mean "after" or "at or before?"

 

You got me. I changed it. Thank you.

"Of the seven only two (i.e. 33 and L) date after the 5th century."

 

Origen, thank you for summarizing! Yes both readings are ancient for sure. I prefer ‘Son’ but I see extensive support for ‘God’ also. Both statements are true. Lord Bless

 

Thank you very much. I made some updates to the information. I am trying to be as thorough as possible. However I must point out the information provided is not exhaustive by any means.

 

Check our thread concerning if should be translated as Only begotten , or unique, one of a kind...

 

this threads reminded me of the one concerning only begotten or as unique, as saw either was valid, and in same fashion, agree with you that either term chosen here would be valid also!

 

This post reminds me that some posters deny monogenes means unique or one of a kind, and never means begotten. Begotten is a mistranslation from the Latin.
Returning to thread topic why do several translations of John 1:18 leave out the third description of Logos/Jesus?

 

Would you please clarify the above statement for me? Thank you.

 

Maybe it die to those evil "western" texts monks changing the meaning might be his answer!

 

Actually, either Son or God can be used in that passage being discussed!