Two principle NT issues.

[McCree79]

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.

NKJV is an excellent tradition. With your textual preference you have chosen wisely.




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

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 !

Uncial is a nightmare. Hahaha
I have to think hard looking at 01 or 03 and others.

Minuscule is where it is at.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

As far as Jerome what did he put in the Latin Vulgate?

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

 

[McCree79]

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?

They used the phrase μονογενης υίος as well. Which could very well have came from John 3:16.

As Paul McReynolds* has pointed out, Bart Ehrman failed to distinguish from the early church fathers whether John 3:16 or John 1:18 is referenced. Without John 1:18 being specifically cited, we can not say they knew of the reading. However, when they cite μονογενης θεος without citation of chapter and verse, we know where it comes from. It only occurs in John 1:18.

* Paul McReynolds, “John 1:18 in Textual Variation and Translation,” in New Testament Textual Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 118. Cf. Carroll Osburn, “Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism,” NovT 47 (2005): 313-43.














Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Garrett20]

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

I believe the Old Latin contains “only begotten Son” as well.

 

[McCree79]

I believe the Old Latin contains “only begotten Son” as well.

I can't find this....I was wondering the same thing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Garrett20]

NKJV is an excellent tradition. With your textual preference you haveSent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Amen! I have many friends of the critical text persuasion that prefer the NKJV as well for its extensive textual notes.

 

[McCree79]

I believe the Old Latin contains “only begotten Son” as well.

I do see where the UBS shows an early version of the Vulgate reading just ό μονογενης. No "son", no "God", just "The unique one" or "The Begotten One".

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Amen! I have many friends of the critical text persuasion that prefer the NKJV as well for its extensive textual notes.

It is also just really well done. I don't like it is based on the TR, but the translators did really well from the text they worked from.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Deacon]

Using English Bible version footnotes to get text critical information is like reading a comic book version of classic literature, they simplify things to almost to the point of absurdity.

Buy yourself a Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and learn to use the apparatus.

Rob

 

[Garrett20]

I do see where the UBS shows an early version of the Vulgate reading just ό μονογενης. No "son", no "God", just "The unique one" or "The Begotten One".

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I saw where some of the Vulgate manuscripts read differently. I know Theodore Letis covered John 1.18 extensively in his work, “The Ecclesiastical Text”. He mentions “Son” as the reading in nearly all of the Old Latin witnesses and all but 2 in the Vulgate (Ecclesiastes Text, pg. 132). He claims that most scholars acknowledge that both readings go back to the second century.

 

[Garrett20]

Using English Bible version footnotes to get text critical information is like reading a comic book version of classic literature, they simplify things to almost to the point of absurdity.

Buy yourself a Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and learn to use the apparatus.

Rob

Agreed Rob! I also have the Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text as well as Metzger’s Textual Commentary.

 

[McCree79]

Do you have a source for this?

.



Islamic Caliphates are common knowledge.

Even a secular History book will cover it.

Every Christian History book I have covers it as well, such as Baker's "Christian History" 3rd Edition pp.108-110 and Kuiper's "The church in history" pp. 61-68.

Needham's large work covers it as well.





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

I saw where some of the Vulgate manuscripts read differently. I know Theodore Letis covered John 1.18 extensively in his work, “The Ecclesiastical Text”. He mentions “Son” as the reading in nearly all of the Old Latin witnesses and all but 2 in the Vulgate (Ecclesiastes Text, pg. 132). He claims that most scholars acknowledge that both readings go back to the second century.

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

 

[Conan]

Using English Bible version footnotes to get text critical information is like reading a comic book version of classic literature, they simplify things to almost to the point of absurdity.

Buy yourself a Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and learn to use the apparatus.

Rob

While that is very true, almost the same could be said for N/A. Does it always give reading for Vaticanus? I think not. Theirs is a "handy scholars edition." They pass over many variants as well. We cannot reconstruct manuscripts from the handy compact edition. Maybe that is unfair, they only have so much room. But why not note all of Vaticanus's variations?

 

[McCree79]

While that is very true, almost the same could be said for N/A. Does it always give reading for Vaticanus? I think not. Theirs is a "handy scholars edition."

To say that the NA or even the UBS is "almost the same" as using the NKJV footnotes is a comparison without warrant.

I have also never came across a variant where Vaticanus is not cited. [This would not count spelling differences]

They pass over many variants as well. We cannot reconstruct manuscripts from the handy compact edition.

The purpose of the NA or any Greek text is not so we can reconstruct manscripts. If you want to know what it says, read that manuscript.

For the Bible translator there is absolutely no need to have every variant. We would be looking at way to many spelling differences for it to even be useful.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Conan]

To say that the NA or even the UBS is "almost the same" as using the NKJV footnotes is a comparison without warrant.

True enough. But USB has so few variants.

I have also never came across a variant where Vaticanus is not cited. [This would not count spelling differences]

Oh I am sure it is always cited when they list a variant. I guess I was trying to complain they do not list all of B's variants with their text.

The purpose of the NA or any Greek text is not so we can reconstruct manscripts. If you want to know what it says, read that manuscript.

Do you have a link where I can read Codex Vaticanus online? I am sorry some of my complaints go back to the days before computers.

For the Bible translator there is absolutely no need to have every variant. We would be looking at way to many spelling differences for it to even be useful.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That is certainly true. Excellent point.

 

[Origen]

Do you have a link where I can read Codex Vaticanus online?

DigiVatLib

Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM

 

[Conan]

Got a link to Codex Vaticanus if anyone is interested.

DigiVatLib

 

[Conan]

DigiVatLib

Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM

Once again I am in your debt. Thank you!