I invited and provided for you, because you, yourself, said that the earliest manuscripts were your authority, P66, P75, to view and translate them for yourself and referred to the Sinaiticus and Alexandrinis Codices to refute the 1700 year accepted translation of the ancient manuscripts. We got silence from you.
You state: "Also - obviously the majority of translators do not agree with θεός in place of υἱός." This is a very misleading statement. The Majority Texts are called that because of the duration and extent of the Byzantine Empire. The Alexandrian Text types existed in northern Egypt until the Muslim conquest and destruction of the great Alexandrian Library, with all its books and manuscripts around 642 A.D.. In effect halting any further copying and distribution of Biblical manuscripts. The Eastern half of the Byzantine Empire covered an area of about 3,400,000 sq km in 565 A.D. with it's greatest population of about 26,000,00 in 540 A.D.. The Byzantine Empire, the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which survived for a thousand years after the western half had crumbled into various feudal kingdoms and which finally fell to Ottoman Turkish onslaughts in 1453. So is it any wonder that the are many, many more later manuscripts produced. Which over nearly a 1,000 year period would answer why so many variants would occur?
Because of your dismissal of translations of which I have generously showed you, which oppose your position, I went to the earliest
manuscripts, as you insisted, which clearly use θεός in the texts to describe Jesus.
I ended my quotation of Dan Wallace at that point. I had already offered John 1:1 earlier which was ignored: "For
John 1:18 P66 reads:
μονογενὴς θεός. P75 reads:
ὁ μονογενὴς θεός. monogenēs theos. P75 with the definite article. In English the "only begotten God". Dr. Wallace exegeted 7 portions of Scripture of which I only quoted 4 of Dr. Wallace's exegesis.
But if you think that I omitted it because it somehow substantiates your claim I'll go ahead and offer a succinct analysis of Dr. Wallace's assessment. I gave the link earlier if you want to view it in it's entirety:
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.
82 As a whole, then, I believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. Nevertheless, this external evidence alone does not make θεός the exclusive heir to the throne. Let us now turn to the internal evidence.
In response, the offense of using θεός probably drove a scribe to the less offensive Christology of υἱός, which comports well with the scribal tendency to simplify the text (substituting “God” for “Son” is highly
improbable, perhaps best explaining the absence of θεός in later Greek MSS). Even more, μονογενὴς θεός is
never used elsewhere.
85 One must ask, then, why here and only here do we have the textual variant μονογενὴς θεός (with or without the article)? My answer, given this scenario alone, is that θεός best explains the rise of the other variants.
Stylistically, θεός closes the inclusio begun in 1.1c; also possibly providing a parallel with 20.28 (the Gospel as a whole). Perhaps the intention was to shock the reader. If this phrase occurred frequently then the author may have failed in achieving his desired result. The reference “who is in the bosom of the Father” is an anthropomorphic metaphor for intimacy and fellowship.
86 In other words, it is an idiom for closeness and does not truly affect either reading. Lastly, the author of John’s Gospel has a penchant for varying Christological designations (cf., e.g., 1.49; 4.42; 6.69; 9.38; 11.27; 20.16).
Another internal argument sometimes given, a scribe could have easily erred since only one Greek majuscule letter differentiates “Son” from “God”: =u=-s or =q=-s. One problem with this option, however, is that υἱός was not one of the original (or earliest)
nomina sacra.
87 At the same time, though, θεός (q=-s) was one of the four earliest (i.e., Ἰησοῦς, Χριστός, κύριος, and θεός) and most consistently rendered
nomina sacra from the second century onward.
88 To state this differently, although this option is not impossible, it is highly improbable given the transmissional evidence we have.
What variant, then, best explains the rise of the others? I believe that the subtle meaning of the two words in their original apposition, μονογενὴς θεός, caused an early misconception. Thus, an article was assigned to the original reading, now ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, as early as P75, a, and copbo, sa. Ironically, this change wound up alleviating nothing and was inconsistent with other Johannine and NT usage. Accordingly, the next stage of evolution changed “God” to “Son”: ὁ μονογενὴς
υἱός. Finally, although a few other variants arose which either combined the two readings (ὁ μονογενὴς
υἱὸς θεός)
89 or simply omitted both (ὁ μονογενής),
90 ὁ μονογενὴς υἱόςbecame the majority reading with
no viable evidence of change in later Greek MSS.
91
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.
92
Your comment to the first two sentences below:
92 The deity of Christ is not jeopardized even if υἱός is original. Although that shouldn’t be a factor in the discipline of textual criticism, this does allow certain (evangelical) textual critics to follow the evidence to a relatively objective conclusion. On the other hand, Ehrman does have a tremendous problem if θεός ends up being the best reading because it would contradict his overall thesis and would put a major dent in his
a priori assumption that Jesus is not called θεός in the NT. For example, Ehrman specifically states that if μονογενὴς θεός is the original text in John 1.18 then “the complete deity of Christ is affirmed” (Ehrman,
Orthodox Corruption, 78). Yet this is a theological belief he does not support at this time.
Your comment: "The FACT that the text says
υἱός and not
θεός shouldn't be a factor???? LOLOLOLOL!" You are misquoting Dr. Wallace. I'll leave the determination of your motive for others to assess.
First, He is not, after all the manuscript and historical evidence, now saying that it is a "FACT that the text says
υἱός and not
θεός shouldn't be a factor" as you falsely accuse. Let's read it again:
The deity of Christ is not jeopardized even if υἱός is original. Although that shouldn’t be a factor in the discipline of textual criticism, this does allow certain (evangelical) textual critics to follow the evidence to a relatively objective conclusion
Understanding common English Grammar, when the word "if" or the term "even if" is used in a sentence it refers to a hypothetical. What he is saying is that even as he has demonstrated that the earliest manuscript evidence and church history has validated Christ as
θεός,
"even if" that wasn't the case, the entirety of the New Testament testifies to that fact that He is the unique Son of God. Even Bart Ehrman admitted: "that if μονογενὴς θεός is the original text in John 1.18 (let alone all the other references. Brackets mine) then the complete deity of Christ is affirmed” (Ehrman,
Orthodox Corruption, 78).
And it is in the closest manuscripts to the original.
