• 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.

37818

Well-Known Member
This is a textual issue. It concern the tense of the participle.

The form γινομένου is a present, middle, participle, neuter, singular, genitive from γίνομαι.
The form γενομένου is an aorist, middle, participle, neuter, singular, genitive from γίνομαι.

There is only one letter difference between the forms.
γινομένου (present)
γενομένου (aorist)
The present tense has an iota while the aorist (i.e. past) tense has an epsilon.

This is the reason for the temporal difference between translations. Some translators are trying to reflect the present tense participle (i.e. supper being in progress) while other translators are trying to reflect the aorist (i.e. past) tense participle (i.e. supper being ended).

Using terms like "during" or "being ended" are absolutely necessary in order to convey the nuance of a verb\participle tense.
γινομένου 00.3% of the mss evidence.
γενομένου 99.5% of the mss evidence. Wtth support of the oldest reading (P66) γεναμένου

Add to this the truth Judas partook in the Lord's Supper. Luke 22:19-21, ". . . And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. . . ."
 

Origen

Active Member
γινομένου 00.3% of the mss evidence.
γενομένου 99.5% of the mss evidence. Wtth support of the oldest reading (P66) γεναμένου
I am aware of that information, but that really has nothing to do with my point. I was addressing the issue of tense in regard to why translators would choose "during" while others would choose "being ended." The participle γινομένου is present tense while γενομένου is an aorist. That has nothing to do with which reading is the correct one or even what the evidence is. It is a matter of knowing Greek verb\participle forms, meanings, and usages.
 
Last edited:

37818

Well-Known Member
I am aware of that information, but that really has nothing to do with my point. I was addressing the issue of tense in regard to why translators would choose "during" while others would choose "being ended." The participle γινομένου is present tense while γενομένου is an aorist. That has nothing to do with which reading is the correct one or even what the evidence is. It is a matter of knowing Greek verb\participle forms, meanings, and usages.
Yes. The reason I referenced John 13:2 is the issue that one reading is original and the other is not. Also because MLV claims to follow the Majority text and went with the off reading, and to their credit showed that was done with the italics.

At issue is what is actually the God breathed reading. With John 1:18, "unique God," or "the unique Son." John 13:2, "during," or "being ended." This matters.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is a textual issue. It concern the tense of the participle.

The form γινομένου is a present, middle, participle, neuter, singular, genitive from γίνομαι.
The form γενομένου is an aorist, middle, participle, neuter, singular, genitive from γίνομαι.

There is only one letter difference between the forms.
γινομένου (present)
γενομένου (aorist)
The present tense has an iota while the aorist (i.e. past) tense has an epsilon.

This is the reason for the temporal difference between translations. Some translators are trying to reflect the present tense participle (i.e. supper being in progress) while other translators are trying to reflect the aorist (i.e. past) tense participle (i.e. supper being ended).

Using terms like "during" or "being ended" are absolutely necessary in order to convey the nuance of a verb\participle tense.
Does Son/God rendering. or during/having ended really affect what the scriptures are teaching to us though to a substantial degree?
 

Origen

Active Member
The reason I referenced John 13:2 is the issue that one reading is original and the other is not.
Obviously, but that is true of every word in the Bible. It is common knowledge.

Also because MLV claims to follow the Majority text and went with the off reading, and to their credit showed that was done with the italics
When you say MLV I take it you mean Modern Language Version?

Is that the same one as "Modern Language Bible the New Berkeley Version" edited by Gerrit Verkuyl?

Or do you mean MEV = Modern English Version?

Could you prove a link to the MLV? I would like to make sure I am looking at the correct one.

At issue is what is actually the God breathed reading.
I would agree that the original reading is the goal, but that was not what I was addressing. It is possible to address other topics, nuances, related, aspects of the text. For example I could examine text I know is not the original to better understand a point of grammar. Even understanding the errors help us understand the text better (its history, its development etc).

This matters.
I never claimed otherwise. I merely pointed out what I was addressing had nothing to do with the evidence for or against a reading. Which ever reading one may choose the correct translation of the word has nothing to do with that evidence. That is a matter of Greek grammar\syntax.
 
Last edited:

Origen

Active Member
Does Son/God rendering. or during/having ended really affect what the scriptures are teaching to us though to a substantial degree?
(1) "Son/God rendering" - Not in my opinion. Both doctrines are taught in the Scriptures.

(2) "during/having ended" - In this case it is a possibility. Some have argued it does. It is important in regard to contexts (i.e. temporal setting).
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
(1) "Son/God rendering" - Not in my opinion. Both doctrines are taught in the Scriptures.

(2) "during/having ended" - In this case it is a possibility. Some have argued it does. It is important in regard to contexts (i.e. temporal setting).
Would the main question arising in the second scenario be regarding if Judas actual partook of last Supper or not?
 

37818

Well-Known Member
The Gnostics favored the "unique God" reading. "The uniqjue Son" reading supports the "eternal Son" interpretation and the Son of God being YHWH who appeared in the OT.
 
Last edited:

37818

Well-Known Member
Any main differences between that and the Nkjv, as use same text sources?
The NKJV followed the KJV Greek text for the most part. With Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society and Majority Greek text readings in the margen where different than the KJV TR.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Gnostics favored the "unique God" reading. "The uniqjue Son" reading supports the "eternal Son" interpretation and the Son of God being YHWH who appeared in the OT.
Either way keeps the deity of Jesus!
 

Origen

Active Member
The Gnostics favored the "unique God" reading.
They did, but that did not seem to matter to the orthodox church fathers (Greek or Latin) who quoted "unique God" from John 1:18.

For example all of the following have "unique God" and some even have both "unique God" and "unique Son."
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria (both wrote tomes against gnosticism and yet both men quoted John 1:18 with "unique God" favorably)
Didymus the Blind
Athanasius
Epiphanius of Salamis
Gregory of Nyssa
Cyril of Jerusalem
Basil
Hilary of Poitiers
Ambrose

"The uniqjue Son" reading supports the "eternal Son" interpretation and the Son of God being YHWH who appeared in the OT.
In the works of Clement of Alexandria there is a fragment called Excerpts of Theodotus. Theodotus was a Valentianian Gnostic. One thing that makes this excerpt interesting is it use of both "only-begotten god" and "only-begoten son."

The verse, “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God” the Valentinians understand thus, for they say that the “beginning” is the “Only Begotten” and that he is also called God, as also in the verses which immediately follow it explains that he is God, for it says, “The Only-Begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” Now they say that the Logos in the beginning, that is to say in the Only-Begotten, in the Mind and the Truth, indicates the Christ, the Logos and the Life. Wherefore he also appropriately calls God him who is in God, the Mind. “That which came into being in him,” the Logos, “was Life,” the Companion. Therefore the Lord also says, “I am the Life.”

Therefore, the Father, being unknown, wished to be known to the Aeons, and through his own thought, as if he had known himself, he put forth the Only-Begotten, the spirit of Knowledge which is in Knowledge. So he too who came forth from Know ledge, that is, from the Father's Thought, became Knowledge, that is, the Son, because “through' the Son the Father was known.” But the Spirit of Love has been mingled with the Spirit of Knowledge, as the Father with the Son, and Thought with Truth, having proceeded from Truth as Knowledge from Thought. And he who remained “Only-Begotten Son in the bosom of the Father” explains Thought to the Aeons through Knowledge, just as if he had also been put forth from his bosom; but him who appeared here, the Apostle no longer calls “Only Begotten,” but “ as Only-Begotten,” “Glory as of an Only-Begotten.” This is because being one and the same, Jesus is the” First-Born” in creation, but in the Pleroma is “Only- Begotten.” But he is the same, being to each place such as can be contained [in it]. And he who descended is never divided from him who remained. For the Apostle says, “For he who ascended is the same as he who descended.” And they call the Creator, the image of the Only-Begotten.
Both terms were used by the Valentianian Gnostics to refer to the Logos\Son.
 
Last edited:

37818

Well-Known Member
Either way keeps the deity of Jesus!
So are saying it is OK to be a Gnostic?

NWT, John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So are saying it is OK to be a Gnostic?

NWT, John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."
I would say capital God, as in God, not a god!
 

37818

Well-Known Member
They did, but that did not seem to matter to the orthodox church fathers (Greek or Latin) who quoted "unique God" from John 1:18.

For example all of the following have "unique God" and some even have both "unique god" and "unique son."
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria (both wrote tomes against gnosticism and yet both men quoted John 1:18 favorably)
Didymus the Blind
Athanasius
Epiphanius of Salamis
Gregory of Nyssa
Cyril of Jerusalem
Basil
Hilary of Poitiers
Ambrose

In the works of Clement of Alexandria there is a fragment called Excerpts of Theodotus. Theodotus was a Valentianian Gnostic. One thing that makes this excerpt interesting is it use of both "only-begotten god" and "only-begoten son."

Both terms were used by the Valentianian Gnostic to refer to the Logos\Son.
Without John 1:18 reading "the unique Son," how can it be argued the second Person who appeard as God in the OT was then the "eternal" Son prior to His incarnation? Luke 1:35.
 

Origen

Active Member
Without John 1:18 reading "the unique Son," how can it be argued the second Person who appeard as God in the OT was then the "eternal" Son prior to His incarnation?
Because basically the same term is used in John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9. Also μονογενής may stand on it own as a reference to the only-begotten Son John 1:14. The concept is still found the Johannine literature.

Yet again that has nothing with the points I was making in 156.

First, numerous orthodox church fathers (Greek or Latin) used the phrase knowing that was also used by Gnostics. They knew that a heretic could twist any Scripture to fit their needs if they wanted yet they still quoted john 1:18 with "unique God."

Second, the point was illustrated from the above Excerpts of Theodotus (a Valentianian Gnostic) which took "unique son" and did just that. The term "unique son" is by no mean heretic proof. Theodotus took the term "unique son" and used it for his own advantage.
 
Top