John 1:18

Do you know what a hapax legomenon is?
It refers to a term that is used only once in the Bible.
So you're saying that a Biblical author can't use a phrase only once in the Bible?
I think that's a very unreasonalble assumption.

But "monogenes" is a compound word, coming from "monos" (only) and "genos" (kind), so it plainly means, "unique", or "only of its kind". This is why it is translated as "only" when it's not describing the godhead (eg. Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38). And since it only refers to people, to understand it as "only begotten" seems redundant and awkward.

Further, the reason it was originally misconstrued as "only begotten" because it was originally assumed that it game from the term, "gennao" (to become), rather than "genos" ("kind"). So "begotten" is clearly a mistake.

I find it interesting that you prefer the rendering "the only begotten son of God". I find this to be problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, are you aware of any manuscripts which have the rendering, "monogenes uios theos"? If not, then you shouldn't translate it from a reading that doesn't exist. Better to translate it based on what's there, and interpret it after that (such as JW's taking Acts 20:28 and interpreting it as, "the church of God which He bought with the blood of his own [Son]". Of course, likewise Acts 20:28 doesn't read "son", and it shouldn't be interpreted in that way.

Further, if you want "theos" to be understood as possessive "theou" ("of God", or "God's"), then why wouldn't it be in the genitive case, as we see "son of God" elsewhere (Matt. 8:29, John 1:49, etc.)

I also find it curious that you want to interpret "monogenEs" as substantival. There is no reason to do that, unless for theological reasons you reject what the text otherwise says. We have "o monogenEs huios", where the adjective and noun match in gender, number, and case, so there is absolutely no reason not to interpret it as attributive.

There are a couple of textual criticism issues which I believe also support "only God" rather than "only son". The first is that all extant manuscripts from the first four centuries read either "monogenEs theos" or "ho monogenEs theos". The reading for "son" doesn't appear until the 5th century. And the earlier manuscriptures are more trustworthy, since the original text had to occur prior to the later reading.

The other issue is a principle repeated by many textual scholars, including Daniel Wallace, "Choose the reading that best explains the other variant readings". So here is the issue. Everyone knows that John loves using the expression, "monogenEs huios", it's going to sound somewhat odd to come across "monogenEs theos". A scribe might believe a previous scribe made an error, and so change it to "huios". Or if the scribe has been transcribing John's works for a while, he may have muscle memory to subconsciously change it to "huios". However, if the original reading was "huios", there's no reason to change it to "God". This is also an example of the principle that the harder expression is more likely to be the original, because a scribe is more likely to change a difficult reading into an easier one, than to change an easier reading into a more difficult one.
Quality post.
 
Misleading in the extreme. In manuscripts before mid half of the 4th century,

Which is 0, maybe 1 plus some Alexandrian papyri, following the Alexandrian reading.
By looking at the ECW we see that the majority of early manuscripts was "Son".

SON (About 4 of these are both)
Irenaeus (0180) -
Clement of Alexandria (0210)
Tertullian (0210)
Hippolytus (0220)
Origen (0240)
Third Synod of Antioch (c. 259 to Paul of Samostaa)
Archelaus (0270)
Alexander of Alexandria (0313)
Eustathius - (0320) -
Athanasius (0350)
 
Which is 0, maybe 1 plus some Alexandrian papyri, following the Alexandrian reading.
By looking at the ECW we see that the majority of early manuscripts was "Son".

SON (About 4 of these are both)
Irenaeus (0180) -
Clement of Alexandria (0210)
Tertullian (0210)
Hippolytus (0220)
Origen (0240)
Third Synod of Antioch (c. 259 to Paul of Samostaa)
Archelaus (0270)
Alexander of Alexandria (0313)
Eustathius - (0320) -
Athanasius (0350)
?

You're not making any sense. According to the majority of modern scholars the external evidence favors monogenês theos as the original text.

Monogenes theos
was in use for a long time by all sorts of people from the earliest times, and it seems never a point in contention amongst the Greeks, excepting the Valentinian-Gnostic interpretation (circa 150AD), which was heavily deprecated theologically.

I suspect that the Romans/Latins, early on inclined to Sabellianism, didn't like monogenês theos, because it relegated the Son to a subordinate status, and so smacked of Arianism (as I have already alluded to above). The Greeks had a reputation for tolerating Arianism amongst the Latins, and were willing to tolerate monogenês theos in the writings of the ECFs. Monogenês theos also appeared in some early creeds, according to Hort, and can even be read into the Nicene creed, although it doesn't appear directly.
 
Last edited:
You're not making any sense. According to the majority of modern scholars the external evidence favors monogenês theos as the original text.

These are the "modern scholars" who even think the last twelve verses of Mark are not scripture.

Totally unreliable.
(And even they are split. e.g. the Tyndale House critical text had the pure Bible reading.)
 
These are the "modern scholars" ......
.....who don't idolize the KJV/Textus Receptus, like you.

According to Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the discovery of 𝔓66 and 𝔓75, both from codices written in uncials on papyrus, the original reading is most likely to be monogenes theos.

Evidence trumps prejudice.
 
.....who don't idolize the KJV/Textus Receptus, like you.
According to Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the discovery of 𝔓66 and 𝔓75, both from codices written in uncials on papyrus, the original reading is most likely to be monogenes theos.
Evidence trumps prejudice.

The Bible is pure, inspired and preserved, there was no reason for it to change because of a couple of desert manuscripts.
Your "Bible" can change any day.

And even Kurt and Barbara Aland pointed out that the papyri evidence is way overrated. I would even say negative, since it would preserve gnostic variants against the pure Bible.

The Text of the New Testament (1995)
Kurt and Barbara Aland

We should not forget that apart from 0212 (found at Dura Europus). all the early witnesses listed above on p. 57 are from Egypt, where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries (similar climatic conditions are found in the Judaean desert where papyri have also been discovered). From other major centers of the early Christian church nothing has survived. This raises the question whether and to what extent we can generalize from the Egyptian situation. Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism; this was not broken until about A.D. 200. when Bishop Demetrius succeeded in reorganizing the diocese and establishing communications with the other churches. Not until then do we have documentary evidence of the church in Egypt, although undoubtedly not only the gnostic but also the broader Church was represented there throughout the whole period. At almost the same time the Catechetical School of Alexandria was instituted as the first "Christian university." - p. 58

This includes the two manuscripts that intoxicated cjab.
 
Gnosticism was everywhere: Asia, Syria, Egypt & Rome. Why single out Egypt? Gnostics had their own scriptures, their own gospels. I think the Kurt and Barbara Aland observation is perfectly lame.

When the cost of producing these papyri etc are taken into account, it is unlikely anyone was going to intentionally subvert the text: such would render them valueless.

The fact remains that the earliest uncials א B C L, the Version of Lower Egypt and Peshito Syriac, and the two papyri I alluded to above, demonstrate monogenes theos. All of these are also concomitant with an orthodox church in Eqypt. CodeX Regius is 8th century. The Valentinians evince monogenes theos back to circa 170AD. This is a large date range.

Monogenes theos is however antipathetic to the Roman Sabellian tendency, which I believe you espouse, or did espouse, and in a way favors the Greek arian tendency. One can see why the Romans could not contemplate monogenes theos. LIkely it was the Roman influence that finally spelt the death knell for monogenes theos.
 
Last edited:
The Bible is pure, inspired and preserved, there was no reason for it to change because of a couple of desert manuscripts.
This really is a gnostic argument. And your biblical authority is? Has not God frequently punished mankind by witholding the word of God? E.g. 1 Samuel 3:1 "Now in those days the Word of the Lord was rare and visions were scarce."

Does any textual critic support your "Word of the Lord on a plate" theory?

Rather: Jer 29:13 "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."
 
Does any textual critic support your "Word of the Lord on a plate" theory?

The sine qua non to being a “textual critic”:

1) there is no identifiable pure and perfect word of God (Scriptures)

2) there can never be an identifiable pure and perfect word of God (Scriptures)

That should answer your question.
 
The sine qua non to being a “textual critic”:

1) there is no identifiable pure and perfect word of God (Scriptures)

2) there can never be an identifiable pure and perfect word of God (Scriptures)

That should answer your question.
No, it's not a sine non qua, because it many instances the manuscript evidence is in agreement and not divergent or insignifically divergent.

The sine non qua to being a non textual-critic is that all disrepancies are to be resolved in favor of the "majority," but that runs counter to the way of salvation, which is that only the remnant will be saved. It is also an argument that delegitimizes protestantism as a valid enterprise, and delegitimizes science, in promoting the ignorance and superstition of the masses over learning.
 
That is not my belief. And the major proponent of that position, Maurice Robinson, tries very hard to have it accepted as a “textual criticism” alternative position.
Saying "not my belief" is unacceptable. How do you resolve manuscript discrepancies? You can't condemn textual critics and then refuse yourself to say how manuscript discrepancies should be resolved. That is hypocrisy.
 
Back
Top