-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Two principle NT issues.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
he was there in his Deity!
37818
Well-Known Member
Really?
Either the reading in John 1:18 was originally "unique God" or "the unique Son." So either "God" was changed to read " the . . . Son" or "the . . . Son" was changed to read "God." This change was no accident.
Does it really make that much of a difference?
37818
Well-Known Member
So was God the Father of another God or of the Son?
37818
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Just One God, in 3 persons, correct?
How so? Jesus is both Son of God and also God!
Origen
Active Member
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.
Last edited:
is there any real problem regardless which phrase is used?
Origen
Active Member
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.
Last edited:
Know that some see the Alexandrian text family as somehow part of a nefarious attempt to pollute the word of God!
37818
Well-Known Member
Not necessarly if the reading is "unique God, which is in the bosom of the Father, . . ."
he is the Unique One among the trinity, as only One to have become and still is a Man!
37818
Well-Known Member
Well was He always "the unique Son" (John 1:18) or did He become "the unique Son" solely through the incarnation, Luke 1:35?
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
Origen
Active Member
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!
Last edited:
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
Origen
Active Member
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).
Last edited: