Two principle NT issues.

[Origen]

Thank you for the double check Origen!

No problem. Happy I could help.

 

[Conan]

Codex S is 10th century. The date is literally written on it. 949

Thanks. My apparatus was wrong here (Swanson). Thanks for the correction.

Psi is also 9th/10th

Usually dated paleographically to the eighth/ninth centuries; the latest editions (e.g. NA27) date it to the ninth/tenth centuries. Perhaps my information was dated.NT Manuscripts - Uncials
Perhaps the earlier dating was correct.

You are down to 2. You claimed earlier that my statement that "son was not wide spread until 9th century" was false. Yet you only proved to manuscripts that read son before the 9th?

Not at all. All of those 14 manuscripts had ancestors that they copied from, going back at least to the 8th century. And their ancestors go back even further, not even giving a hint they knew the reading "God". With the exception of 33 and L its reading has all but disapeared from history. The Byzantine text has been know since at least Westcott/Hort to have dominated since the 4th century onwards, as attested by later dated manuscripts, all of whom had ancestors that were copied from earlier manuscripts. There are 3000 plus Gospel manuscripts, hardly anyone copied from another, but they all had independant ancestors. With the exception of Egypt, I doubt the reading was ever hardly known. Looking at the surviving witnesses, it looks like "Son" always dominated the manuscripts, with the exception of Egypt.

Leading up to the council of Nicea arguments were being fought over the words μονογενης θεος for 1:18. The church fathers had this reading. The coptic and Arabic exclusively read "God". The reason the read of "God" was suppressed was the activity of Islam. The Byzantine was able to become dominant due to this activity.

According to Hort, the Byzantine Text became to dominate from the 4th century onwards, well before Islam, and didn't Egyptian Churches still survive even until this day? Didn't they keep copying manuscripts at Saint Catherine's monastery ?





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[Garrett20]

Absolutely.

This one concerns me less than some of the others because Jesus is God and Jesus is being referred to regardless if we accept θεος (theos/God) or υίος (huios/Son). Jesus has clear been established by John as the μονογενής (monogenes) of chapter 1 and 3 and I have no knowledge of a Greek Manuscript that doesn't read μονογενής θεος or μονογενής υίος. It is also difficult to decide. It would be really easy for scribe to have an error reading and write the wrong word. In the form as nominative sacra, they are only 1 letter different. Granted, that letter looks much different.

The NA28 read "God".
The THGNT reads "Son" (my preferred text)
Robinson's Byzantine reads "Son"
Scrivener TR reads "Son"
SBL reads "God"

Among the most popular Greek new testaments "Son" is favored.

Modern translations are pretty split on which reading they follow.

ESV, NET, NASB, read "God"
NIV, CSB, WEB, NKJV, read "Son".
Historically "son" is favored by English translations.

In the latest edition of the UBS/NA the apparatus does look like the reading of "God" has slightly more weight externally. 01, 33, B, C, some the oldest Syriac, p66, p75, and several church fathers...some of these early leaders may have knew of both readings.

Internally for John to declare Jesus as the μονογενής θεος is the most power statement of his deity in the Bible...if that is the correct reading. If this is the correct reading it does harm to the reading "only begotten Son". Which is a reason many reject this reading. They want "only begotten Son" in there Bible.

If the reading is μονογενής υίος then it still supports Jesus' uniqueness and allows for the famous phrase "only begotten Son".

I prefer the μονογενής θεος (God) due internal support of John's argument of Jesus being (μονογενής) unique among all beings. This reading also echos 1:1 where it is stated Jesus is God. Granted if I believed John was establishing Jesus as "only begotten" in chapter 1, I would support μονογενής υίος (son) as I would perceive the internal evidence as suggesting such.

Overall if I had to rate my certainty that "unique God" or "only God" was the correct reading. In the scale of the UBS, I would say "C" (they rated it as a B).

A "c" is the equivalent of saying the decision is made with difficulty.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Very informative. Thank you. I prefer the Byzantine text in general but especially at John 1.18. I’ve come to the opposite conclusion here and regard ‘only begotten Son’ as likely the original. John uses it elsewhere and nowhere else is monogenes theos used. He uses the title Son of God all throughout his writings. As you mentioned, modern versions are split as to which is original.

The NKJV is an excellent version (my primary version)but I do agree the NET has some excellent notes regarding textual issues as well. I prefer have the Byzantine Textform represented in the body of the text.

 

[Yeshua1]

Very informative. Thank you. I prefer the Byzantine text in general but especially at John 1.18. I’ve come to the opposite conclusion here and regard ‘only begotten Son’ as likely the original. John uses it elsewhere and nowhere else is monogenes theos used. He uses the title Son of God all throughout his writings. As you mentioned, modern versions are split as to which is original.

The NKJV is an excellent version (my primary version)but I do agree the NET has some excellent notes regarding textual issues as well. I prefer have the Byzantine Textform represented in the body of the text.

I like the formal translations, regardless of source texts, as like to use both Nkjv and Nas!

 

[Garrett20]

How many manuscripts read "Son" before the 5th century?


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Good question, but I often ask myself- how many manuscripts do we no longer have from that time? I certainly do not want to base any textual decisions on only old, surviving copies simply because they’re old. We can’t be so sure as to how reliable these surviving copies are. I know modern text critics take into account other factors such as the writings of the early church fathers but sometimes these are not direct quotations but summaries.

 

[37818]

The Nkjv uses same source texts as Kjv though, just updated grammar!

So the NKJV NU and M footnotes have no importance to you.

 

[McCree79]

Thanks. My apparatus was wrong here (Swanson). Thanks for the correction.


Usually dated paleographically to the eighth/ninth centuries; the latest editions (e.g. NA27) date it to the ninth/tenth centuries. Perhaps my information was dated.NT Manuscripts - Uncials
Perhaps the earlier dating was correct.






Didn't they keep copying manuscripts at Saint Catherine's monastery ?





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The Muslims turned into a Mosque when the moved in. So no. I doubt Muslims would keep copying Christian scriptures. They destroy them in fact.
It wasn't handed back to Christians until the 20th century.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

So the NKJV NU and M footnotes have no importance to you.

I really like them, as they help to show me when the CT/MT disagree from the TR text!

 

[37818]

How many manuscripts read "Son" before the 5th century?

None. Two 5th century mss though. A and (W).

 

[McCree79]

Not at all. All of those 14 manuscripts had ancestors that they copied from, going back at least to the 8th century.

How do you know that? Why no ancestor prior to 8th century? That is a long way from the middle and late first century.

The Byzantine text has been know since at least Westcott/Hort to have dominated since the 4th century onwards,

No, the Byztaine started growing then. Until the 8th-9th century the Byzantine would not be able to lay claim of majority text. Muslims helped make it the majority when they burned thousands of Christan writings in the conquests which went all the way to France.

There are 3000 plus Gospel manuscripts, hardly anyone copied from another, but they all had independant ancestors.

The vast majority are like....what like 90% or greater are from 10th century and after.

With the exception of Egypt, I doubt the reading was ever hardly known. Looking at the surviving witnesses, it looks like "Son" always dominated the manuscripts, with the exception of Egypt.

It was known in Caesarea, France, Cyprus and Italy. Basil, Irenaus, Jerome , Eusebius, Hilary, Origen, Gregory-Nyssa, Epiphanius, Ptolemy, Valentinus all knew of it.....plus many others.













Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

None. Two 5th century mss though. A and (W).

Note the "sup" that goes with Wsup. The "sup" indicates a reading added by a scribe at a later date.

Also the reading is unique:
εἱ μὴ ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (“except the only begotten Son”).

 

[McCree79]

None. Two 5th century mss though. A and (W).

W reading of was supplied later. Can't really call that a 5th century reading. The Gospel of John 1:1-5:11 was replaced in W in the 7th century

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

I found a pics of manuscript 33. There is no doubt 33 reads ο μονογενης θ̅ς̅ (underlined in red below).

I don't know how many of you know Greek or even the Greek alphabet so this will prove difficult for many to see.


Grec 14

This is a hand written text and the letter do not conform to printed Greek texts. This will be helpful in reading the minuscule script.
Greek minuscule - Wikipedia

 

[37818]

W reading of was supplied later. Can't really call that a 5th century reading. The Gospel of John 1:1-5:11 was replaced in W in the 7th century

Off hand I do not have that information.

 

[37818]

Note the "sup" that goes with Wsup. The "sup" indicates a reading added by a scribe at a later date.

Also the reading is unique:
εἱ μὴ ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (“except the only begotten Son”).

It is my understanding the reading is 5th century, The () indicating it has a unique reading.

 

[Origen]

It is my understanding the reading is 5th century

The CNTTS apparatus has "sup" and states: "indicates a supplied reading added by a scribe at a later date."

The NA28 apparatus states superscript s "(= supplementum) indicates a reading derived from a later addition to a manuscript, usually replacing a lost folio or section of a manuscript."

The UBS5 has "supp" (as does the Tyndale) and states: "A portion of a manuscript supplied by a later hand where the original is missing, usually representing a different text type."

According to Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism by Philip Comfort "John [i.e. Gospel of John] is more complicated because the first part of John (1:1-5:11), which fills a quire, was the work of a seventh-century scribe who must have replaced a quire (Ws designate the work of this scribe)" pp. 84-85.

 

[Conan]

T

I found a pics of manuscript 33. There is no doubt 33 reads ο μονογενης θ̅ς̅ (underlined in red below).

I don't know how many of you know Greek or even the Greek alphabet so this will prove difficult for many to see.

View attachment 3629
Grec 14

This is a hand written text and the letter do not conform to printed Greek texts. This will be helpful in reading the minuscule script.
Greek minuscule - Wikipedia

Thanks especially for the red underlining and regular Greek font! Extremely helpful! Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Origen]

Thanks especially for the red underlining and regular Greek font! Extremely helpful! Thanks for taking the time.

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.

 

[Conan]

How do you know that? Why no ancestor prior to 8th century?

Oh I am sure they had ancestors going back a lot farther than that. Generation after generation. All going back to the first century AD.

That is a long way from the middle and late first century.

Yes it is. We do not get to a serious textual variant until verse 18. So, until verse 18 1-17, how did all those late (including A 5th) manuscripts do? I will bet better than Aleph and a few others.

No, the Byztaine started growing then. Until the 8th-9th century the Byzantine would not be able to lay claim of majority text. Muslims helped make it the majority when they burned thousands of Christan writings in the conquests which went all the way to France.

Do you have a source for this?

The vast majority are like....what like 90% or greater are from 10th century and after.

It is hard for something so old to survive. The percentage is probably much higher than 90%.

It was known in Caesarea, France, Cyprus and Italy. Basil, Irenaus, Jerome , Eusebius, Hilary, Origen, Gregory-Nyssa, Epiphanius, Ptolemy, Valentinus all knew of it.....plus many others.

So was the reading “Son”. Don’t many of these fathers use both, or are quoted as for both readings. Origen, Irenaus? As far as Jerome what did he put in the Latin Vulgate?













Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Conan]

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.

All of a sudden I am liking uncial script.
With your red underling and regular Greek font I was actually able to make it out.
Now I know were Erasmus or Froben got their style of font from.
Your post was Fantastic !