Featured Two principle NT issues.

he was there in his Deity!

 

Does it really make that much of a difference?

 

Just One God, in 3 persons, correct?

 

How so? Jesus is both Son of God and also God!

 

I would like to see some hard evidence the change was intentional rather than unintentional.

Since the nomina sacra forms are so close (ⲑⲥ and ⲩⲥ, only one letter difference), it is not difficult to see how a misreading of the text is at least possibility.

Moreover as point out both μονογενὴς θεός and μονογενὴς υἱός find early and wide support in the Church fathers (often both forms were quoted by the same Church father). I point this out because the patristic evidence shows no signs of worry concerning the difference between the two readings.

 

is there any real problem regardless which phrase is used?

 

Not in my opinion. Nevertheless I still wonder how people come to their conclusions. While I admit it is at least a possibility the change was intentional, I would like to know the reasons why some hold that view.

 

Know that some see the Alexandrian text family as somehow part of a nefarious attempt to pollute the word of God!

 

he is the Unique One among the trinity, as only One to have become and still is a Man!

 

If the change was intentional, it would make more sense to change 1:18 to "Son" to harmonize with John 3:16.

That being said, we are just one letter off in the Nomina Sacra which has been mentioned multiple times on this thread.

Also, accidental scribal error could occur through error of "memory". If I am used to calling Jesus the μονογενης υίος ( unique son/only begotten son) then which I come to John 1:18, my mind trigger to this as soon as I see the word μονογενης. I completely miss the word θεος because I thought I knew what was coming next. This would be incredibly easy to do once the υίος started appearing in the nomina sacra form. Which was later than θεος appearing in the nomina sacra form.

It is much easier to explain how God could be accidental changed to Son, then explaining how Son was changed to God.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

That is possible. The
"τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ" (accusative case) appears in 3:16, and the phrase "μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ" (genitive case) appears in 3:18. If a scribe was unsure of the reading in 1:18, it is possible that he would look to 3:16 and 18. However I don't think this would qualify as an intentional change. Now I admit it is possible a scribe saw θεός and thought υἱός, given 3:16 and 18, was the correct reading. Yet there simply is no way to prove it.

Agreed!

 

No....and yes. Fully God and fully man. Jesus is Yahweh.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Correct. I meant 3:18.

I used lexical form for simplicity

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

No, you were correct. I made a mistake with my post (i.e. poorly written).

The phrase in verse 3:16 is "τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ" (accusative case).
The phrase in verse 3:18 is "μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ" (genitive case).