John 1:18

The reading μονογενησ Θεοσ is found in p66, part of Aleph (the remainder of Aleph adds the article 'o), B, part of C, L, parts of two ancient vernaculars, and some copies of about 15 patristics.

The reading 'ο μονογενησ υιοσ is attested to by A, the remainder of C, K, W, X, Δ, Θ, Π, Ψ, 063, f1, f13, 28, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, all of the Byzantine MSS, all of the Lectionaries, the Old Latin, Vulgate, about 1/2 the Syriac versions, the Armenian, Ethioptic, and Georgian, as well as 21 patristics.

A small variant containing both words is attested to by one MSS of the Old Latin, and 2 patristics. The exclusion of both words can be seen in one Vugate MSS and 10 patristics.

The evidence is so incredibly conclusive that the reading υιοσ is correct, I fail to see why the other reading appears in the Critical Text as well most of the modern versions. Go figure! (Well, actually, I do know. When the two most corrupt Majescules agree, (Aleph and B) all the rest of the evidence, regardless of how conclusive it may be, is summarily thrown out! And they call that "scholarship?")

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Actually, it is because P66 is dated around 200 A.D. and the Byzantines are largely 9th century or later. Furthermore, not all on the UBS4 committee agreed with theos, hence the {B} rating. Also, you are wrong when you say, "When the two most corrupt Majescules agree, (Aleph and B) all the rest of the evidence, regardless of how conclusive it may be, is summarily thrown out!"
James 5:4 violates what you stated here EXACTLY! Aleph and the original B agree together against all the rest of the evidence, and yet the UBS4 editors placed the Aleph/B reading in the footnote apparatus and the Majority reading in the text with an {A} rating indicating that the critical text editors all agreed! Check it out for yourself (Page 782, UBS4). Your portrayal of the Critical Text editors was caricature that is not based in reality.

Best wishes, Chick

 

Chick, you seem confused. We are discussing John 1:18, not James 5:4.

 

Chick was showing from James 5:4 that the following statement you made is a false statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the two most corrupt Majescules agree, (Aleph and B) all the rest of the evidence, regardless of how conclusive it may be, is summarily thrown out! And they call that "scholarship?")<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will have to agree with Chick on this one. The reading Theos does have good support, though it is not the majority support.

P66 and P75 both support this reading. There is as well a large amount of patristic support it seems.

The committee regarded huios to be an assimilation to John 3:16; 18; and 1 John 4:9.

As for all the editors agreeing, Allen Wikgren disagreed, arguing that it should have been rated at least a "D" rating.

 

&lt;sign&gt; Is there anyone with an IQ greater than his hat size who would like to discuss John 1:18? In addition to an IQ greater than his hat size all applicants will have to demonstrate a reading ability on, at least, the 2nd grade level. All determinations regarding reading comprehension will include the ability to see, recognize, and understand the meaning of the following emoticons:

Qualified applicants only, please.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
&lt;sign&gt; Is there anyone with an IQ greater than his hat size who would like to discuss John 1:18? In addition to an IQ greater than his hat size all applicants will have to demonstrate a reading ability on, at least, the 2nd grade level. All determinations regarding reading comprehension will include the ability to see, recognize, and understand the meaning of the following emoticons:

Qualified applicants only, please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does this not qualify as an ad hominem attack?

I was discussing John 1:18 and the proof you gave for it. James 5:4 addressed part of your proof and showed your reasoning to be questionable. Arguing that Aleph and B automatically disqualify all other evidence is not a true statement. Therefore in John 1:18, there had to be other evidence that persuaded the committee that Theos is the proper reading. That evidence consists of two very early manuscripts (p 66 and 75) and the a large body of patristics. It is set against the later evidence, appearing to be from the 9th century on and some patristics.

Furthermore, Chick pointed out and I documented the fallacy of your argument that the whole committee agreed on this John 1:18. They did not.

In addition my points were taken from the Textual Commentary on the New Testament, by Metzger, from the section on John 1:18, further proving that 1) I am addressing John 1:18; 2) my IQ is larger than my hat size; and 3) my reading level is above the second grade. (Metzger is at least a third grade level).

While you might not like the evidence of my post, you surely cannot deny that it is about John 1:18 and the evidence and reasoning that you put forth.

BTW, how do you get the Greek font and is there a Hebrew one?

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

As once again you have failed to comprehend my post, you application is rejected. Sorry, but feel free to brush up and reapply.

Next!

 

Thomas, maybe you should be told Next! being that there have been 8 posts on this thread so far, three of the eight do not actually discuss anything about John 1:18. All three of these posts are yours. Every other post in some fashion talks about mss evidence. Move along please, unless you actually wish to interact with the discussion. You attempted to describe the reasoning that would have led the CT editors to make the decision they did in John 1:18, and you provided what you believed to be their textual critical theory (see above). I used James 5:4 to demonstrate clearly that your view of the textual methods of the CT editors is a false one. As Pastor Larry pointed out, there must be another reason they reached the conlusion they did. Likely it was the early dating of the papyrii in support of theos. If you don't want to talk about it, then simply move along.

Best wishes in Christian love, charity, kindness, and with no trace of animus,

Chick

 

Pastor Larry,

You can get a free TrueType Greek font at:
www.teknia.com

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
Pastor Larry,

You can get a free TrueType Greek font at:
www.teknia.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry ... I wans't clear.. I have 3 or 4 of each of the fonts (Greek and Hebrew). I was asking concerning getting them in the posts here. I noticed Thomas using a Greek font. I have always been stuck with transliteration (which I have a hard time reading and writing -- I prefer the Greek and Hebrew scripts if we are going to talk about Greek and Hebrew).

Thomas,

What did I "fail to comprehend" about your post? You insinuated that none of the above posts addressed John 1:18. However, they clearly do. In my post, I had exactly three paragraphs directly concerning John 1:18 and a fourth that made the case that I was addressing John 1:18. Why are you refusing to address the issues that Chick and I have raised?

And my question remains, How does your post not qualify as ad ad hominem attack? You attacked the IQ of those who disagree with you. If I implied that your response indicated a IQ less than your hat size, my posted would be edited faster than I could refresh the screen. Why is yours different?

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
&lt;snip&gt;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, but you have demonstrated an inability to properly understand the material posted. Please study and reapply. Thank you.

Next!

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
What did I "fail to comprehend" about your post?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You failed to note the ( ) following my comments regarding the textual critical methods used to select the word θεοσ vice υριοσ. The statement was tongue in cheek, as the emoticon clearly indicates. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You insinuated that none of the above posts addressed John 1:18.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I did not. Please go back and read what I said. We were discussing John 1:18, and the MSS evidence for each reading. James 5:4 is irrelevant when discussing the reading of John 1:18.

 

Thomas,

Pastor Larry and I keep talking about John 1:18 and you have managed to post two more messages that do not talk about it. Please go back and read our posts so that you will be able to interact with the verse at hand, John 1:18. In the discussion, you posited that you knew something of the strategy used by the Critical Text editors, that resulted in their handling of the variant in John 1:18. You clearly applied your opinion of the CT editor's methods to John 1:18--the subject at hand. I confronted you about your opinion claiming that you were wrong. This confrontation was also related to John 1:18 because you were applying your opinion to John 1:18. I utilized James 5:4 to demonstrate that your opinion is fallacious. You are merely using the nonsense above as a technique to get around the fact that you made a claim supporting your view of John 1:18 that has been shown to be fallacious by James 5:4.

Best wishes, Chick


[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

Furthermore, Thomas, the "Big Grin" ( ) does not have a range of meaning limited to "tongue in cheek." The easy way to affirm that you intended your statement to be "tongue in cheek" is to affirm that Aleph and B are not corrupt manuscripts. Furthermore, the context of your statement gave no indication that tongue in cheek was your intention. You have routinely criticized the the two witnesses, Aleph and B, as being inferior. It appears that you are attempting a Clintonian semantic game to extricate yourself from a statement that you had intended to be serious. Simply show a link to a page where you praised the value of Aleph and B for establishing the original readings. If you had wanted to express "tongue in cheek" by your original statment on this thread, you could have used the rolling eyes which is much more associated with tongue-in-cheek.

I want to throw this open to others on the board: Go back and read Thomas' statment and see if he was "tongue-in-cheek", or if he is being "Clintonian"--trying to twist intent after the statement is made. What do you think?

Chick

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Actually, YES they DO call that "scholarship". The libeling/labeling as "two most corrupt" is YOUR subjective judgment pulled into this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No less "libeling/labeling" than calling Aleph and B "best." As the other thread clearly indicates, subjective criteria are not difinitive. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The oldest Greek all agree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the "oldest" Greek MSS do not all agree. There are at least 150 Byzantine reading which predate the Alexandrian readings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The majority of Greek, written much later and copied from the same copies, disagrees.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again you have mis-stated the facts. Robinson/Pierpont say, "An important consideration is that, except for a few small "family" relationships which have been established, the bulk of the Byzantine-era documents are not closely related in any genealogical sense. (This was the conclusion of Lake, Blake, and New after examining the manuscripts in monasteries of Mt. Sinai, Patmos, and jerusalem. [Kirsopp Lake, R.P. Blake, and Silva New, "The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark" Harvard Theological Review 21, 1928, page 349.]) A presumption, therefore, is toward their relative independence from each other rather than their dependence upon one another. This makes the Byzantine majority of manuscripts highly individualistic witnesses which cannot be summarily lumped together as one "mere" texttype, to be played off against other competing texttypes. This relative autonomy has great significance . . . " <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, without jumping to conclusions, what is the practical ramification of the variant Greek insertions? Will it affect theological views?

Is the ESV "only God" actually MORE elevating of Jesus that the AV "only Son"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You leave out the most important word in the quote. If the Greek read simply 'ο υιοσ or 'ο θεοσ we probably would not be having this discussion. But both texts contain the word μονογενησ. Therein lies the problem. Is God a begotten God? If you (mis)translate μονογενησ as "only" (the common greek word for "only" is μονον ) then you have to explain how Christ can be an "only" Son when John 1:12 clearly says all the redeemed are sons of God, the Angles are called "sons of God" etc. The overwhelming textual evidence supports the reading υιοσ. And that reading, in conjunction with the word μονογενησ is the only reading that fits the context and the rest of the theology of the bible.

I seem to remember having posted this at least twice before. I wonder why it is ignored every time I post it. Could it force you to think outside your comfort zone? Cause you to question things you had accepted as "facts?" Kind of like the Hyles crowd had to think outside their comfort zone to realize all the "facts" were not necessarily facts?

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
The easy way to affirm that you intended your statement to be "tongue in cheek" is to affirm that Aleph and B are not corrupt manuscripts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Every bible scholar, no matter what his position on the text issue, who has studied Aleph and B admit they are very poor examples of MSS, with a multitude of corrections, corruptions, strike outs, and marginal enemdations. They differe between themselves over 3000 times in the gospels alone. You can't have it both ways.

 

What you just described kind of sounds like Codex 2 (the one Erasmus gave to the printer in Basil for his first printed edition). Erasmus had crossed words out, made changes, written things in--on a mss that didn't look to great to begin with--and then apparently the printer himself made changes not authorized by Erasmus. Furthermore, Aleph and B are much more different in the Gospels than they are in the rest of the NT. In fact, John 1:1-8:38 is "Western" in Aleph. Of course, your number "3000" is colored by what you count as a "difference." Don't take me wrong, I am not one who believes that any one or two manuscripts are always "best" in any given variant. No two manuscripts agree completely. Differences in all GNT manuscript traditions abound. The strict "family" approach has been whittled away at by scholars for some time. First the "Caesarean Text" family has now become largely rejected by scholarship, and now the "Western" text family is being questioned as to its validity. Even Dan Wallace in his article "The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique" (JETS 37/2 (June 1994) 185-215, is open to the idea that some Byzantine readings may prove to be original. But this by no means indicates that Byzantine "family" if I can call it that is on a whole better, or even represented in the first four centuries--as a whole. In other words, an occasional BYZ reading does not prove the existence of a now non-extant exemplar to the BYZ text which existed prior to the fourth century. Wallace's article is a good read.

 

I am interested in a few more details about these witnesses. I can look up the dates of the mss myself, but I am interested in the text-types they represent. I am also very interested in the early church father quotes: names, dates, locations. What I'm basically after is this: does the "theos" reading have any substantial support *outside* of Alexandria? How much support does "uios" have *within* Alexandrian witnesses?

Thanks,
Brian