TIP of the day: from the blogs - using the Church Fathers, manuscripts and critical apparatus (think

MJ. Smith

Sorry for a third from the blogs post rather than the typical two but this should be of special interested to those who just finished NT281 for the Mobile Ed Summer term. From Biblical Hermeneutics comes a question and its responses regarding John 1:18:

The Question:

[quote]

I was reading my New King James version of the Bible and found a footnote for this verse:

John 1:18 (NKJV)
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

The footnote (found on the online version as well) says that another translation of this verse is "the only begotten God."

It seems that "son" and "god" are two very different words. Why was this footnote added? Was the original language showing "son" or "god"?

The answer:

According to Dan Wallace:

Turning now to the Church Fathers, Ehrman emphasizes the early date of υἱός by listing three specific Church Fathers “who were writing before our earliest surviving manuscripts were produced” (Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian). Regrettably, he does this without acknowledging any Church Father supporting θεός around the same period (or P66). I, therefore, will equally list three here: Irenaeus, Clement, and Eusebius. One may quickly notice that the same names appear on both sides of the debate. This redundancy, though, reveals the fact that many Fathers (both Greek and Latin) use υἱός as well as θεός in their writings at John 1.18. My point is that their are many names that could be used to support either reading.

(Wallace, Jesus as Θεὸς, Textual Examination, John 1:18)

The following are the four textual variants (in transliterated Greek) of John 1:18b:

1.  ho monogenês  (The Only-begotten One)

2.  ho monogenês huios (the only-begotten Son)

3.  monogenês theos (only begotten, God)

4.  ho monogenês theos (the only begotten God)

The following manuscripts support huios (all include the article):

• Greek witnesses
  • Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.)
  • Codex C³ - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
  • Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.)
  • Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.)
  • 063 = 9th C. Greek uncial
  • f^{1, 13} - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss
  • 𝔐 = majority Byzantine text
• Versions
  • Old Latin
  • Curetonian Syriac (5th C.)
  • Heraclean Syriac (18th C. edition)

However, the following supports μονογενὴς Θεὸς as the correct reading :

1) LECTIO DIFFICILIOR POTIOR

The copyist has more likely to change "theos" to "huios" than vise versa.In fact, μονογενὴς Θεὸς is a so-called hapax legomenon - a rare one-time occurrence in the NT. Even if it were a simple scribal error, the sudden appearance of a "difficult reading" in the manuscript tradition would likely be corrected back to the normative text.

2) NOT A GNOSTIC TRANSLATION AT ALL

Some say that it's a gnostic corruption of the text but if that were so then why do we find the Old Testament and Jesus' ancestry in the very MSS?

3) EARLY MSS ATTEST ITS VERACITY

μονογενὴς Θεὸς is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.

The following manuscripts support theos. This list conflates the evidence of those MSS which have an article (ho) and those without it (the latter is the text of Nestle-Aland):

• Greek witnesses
  • Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
  • Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
  • Codex א - Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
  • Codex B - Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
  • Codex C* - Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
  • Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
  • Codex L - Regius (A.D 701-800)
• non-Greek witnesses
  • Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III] (A.D. 300)
  • Diatessaron ("Out of Four") of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
  • Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
  • Adysh manuscript (A.D 897)-Gregordian-Georgian/Iberian version
  • Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
  • Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)
• Late Greek
  • Minuscule 423 (A.D 1556)

Irenaeus' (A.D. 130-202) 'unigenitus deus' in his Against Heresies IV, 20, 11 is probably a John 1:18 quotation from an Old Latin MSS.

The Coptic versions is one of the earliest versions of the NT where huios is completely absent.

Wallace again:

... At the risk of sounding repetitive, θεός shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., early Latin Fathers in the Gospels are Western witnesses)76 with relatively strong textual weight (per Ehrman’s argument). (ibid.)

In sum, externally, both readings enjoy wide geographical distribution, even though υἱός is relatively stronger in non-Alexandrian forms of text. Both readings co-existed in the second century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, then, I believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. (ibid.)

In retrospect, I conclude that μονογενὴς θεός is the best reading given all the evidence we have internally and externally. As a result, it is highly probable that the text of John 1.18 calls Jesus θεός. (ibid.)

4) EASTERN AND WESTERN CHURCH FATHERS AND HERETICS QUOTED IT

Irenaeus, Clement ,Eusebius, Basil, Cyril, and Origen, Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory-Nyssa, Heracleon, Hilary, Jerome, Origen, Ps-Ignatius, Ptolemy, Serapion, Synesius, Tatian, Theodotus, Valentinius, and Arius.

5) FITS THE CONTEXT OF THE PROLOGUE/ JOHANNINE GOSPEL

John 1:1 - pros ton theon / theos

John 1:1 - pros to theon

John 1:14 - monogenes

John 1:18 - monogenes / theos

John 20:28 - theos

You'll notice how coherent the prologue is when Θεὸς is the reading.This is an internal argument for the authenticity of the reading Θεὸς.

Stylistically, θεός closes the inclusio begun in 1.1c; also possibly providing a parallel with 20.28 (the Gospel as a whole). (ibid.)

---

NOTES

There are two possible ways to translate the Greek phrase μονογενὴς Θεὸς:

adjective + substantive = only begotten God

substantive + substantive = only begotten , who is God or God only begotten

The μονογενὴς is best translated as 'only-begotten' (NKJV, NASB) cohering with the scope of parent-to-offspring relationship in which the word is used (cf: John 1:18, 1 John 4:9). To beget means to make someone have one's nature. Thus, the word μονογενὴς encapsulates the idea of 'only child' as its primary semantic locus.

Greg F

Thank you for this, a very interesting discussion.

It's also interesting to point out that the early Vulgate translations used "Filius" (ie. the "huios" reading):

Deum nemo vidit umquam: unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. (Clementine Vulgate)

Whereas the new "official" post-Vatican II Vulgate uses the "theos" reading:

Deum nemo vidit umquam; unigenitus Deus, qui est in sinum Patris, ipse enarravit. (Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio)

Incidentally, Luther also followed the huios reading:

Niemand hat Gott je gesehen; der eingeborene Sohn, der in des Vaters Schoß ist, der hat es uns verkündigt. (Luther Bibel 1912)

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/833004#Comment_833004

Thank you for this very practical example!

Jack Hairston

The difficulty and responsibility of a Translator is awe inspiring.

SineNomine

MJ, this tip could be made much more user-friendly for people who can neither independently translate from the Greek script nor transliterate from said script by giving the Greek script with the relevant transliteration for each word or phrase on at least one occasion.