Search results

This dispute can be easily resolved. Here is the entry for μονογενής in BDAG 3rd ed. e-version p. 658. μονογενής, ές (μόνος, γένος; Hes.; LXX; PsSol 18, 4; TestSol 20:2; TestBenj 9:2; ParJer 7:26; ApcEsdr 6:16; ApcSed 9:2; Joseph., Just.; loanw. in rabb.) acc. μονογενῆ (-ῆν J 3:16 v.l.; Hb...

I was speaking primarily of nomina sacra forms. There is only one letter difference between the two forms (i.e. ⲑⲥ and ⲩⲥ). I do not think it is difficult to see how a misreading of the text is at least a possibility. Another possible scenario I pointed out in post 117. If a scribe was...

You are welcome.

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).

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...

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.

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...

That sounds about right.

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

On page 4 of the Preface it states: John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him]." That is not a TR or M reading. I have no problem with "only begotten God"(or "only begotten son" for that matter), yet I have to wonder...

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.

You got me.:Whistling I changed it. Thank you. "Of the seven only two (i.e. 33 and L) date after the 5th century."

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...

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...

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...

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

DigiVatLib Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM

For Old Latin manuscripts see a, b, c, e, f, ff2, q. All have “only begotten Son." Note that the oldest (i.e. Codex Vercellensis) dates to 350. List of New Testament Latin manuscripts - Wikipedia

The Vulgate has "unigenitus Filius" = "only begotten son." The Peshitta has "only begotten God."

No problem. I am glad to help. If one does know what one is looking for, it is very difficult to see it given the Medieval cursive Greek script.