P66 Bodmer II Papyri 66

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Yes, .. Explain how “mistakes” could lead from μονογενὴς θεός to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός ? What’s the theory ?
With the acquisition of 𝔓66 and 𝔓75, both of which read θεός, the external support of this reading has been notably strengthened. A majority of the Committee regarded the reading μονογενὴς υἱός, which undoubtedly is easier than μονογενὴς θεός, to be the result of scribal assimilation to Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9. The anarthrous use of θεός (cf. 1:1) appears to be more primitive. There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when υἱός supplanted θεός it would certainly have been added. The shortest reading, ὁ μονογενής, while attractive because of internal considerations, is too poorly attested for acceptance as the text.


Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 169–170). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 169–170). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

Do you agree that the anarthrous θεός is primitive?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 169–170). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

Seems like upside down thinking to me. Which scribe ( and they were mostly of the “orthodox” and “proto-orthodox” persuasion) would want to change θεός to υἱός ? Isn’t it more likely that the change happened in the other direction ? Especially since μονογενὴς θεός, if genuine, is a hapax legomenon . You will notice that none of the theologically significant ideas in Scripture are one offs . The important ideas are generally repeated multiple times and in multiple books of the bible. In other words, had μονογενὴς θεός been genuine, we would have indisputably found mention of it elsewhere in Scripture.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Scripture verifies scripture. A wise and diligent student of the bible must be suspicious of anyone who tries to make a theological argument based upon a disputed hapax legomenon.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Seems like upside down thinking to me. Which scribe ( and they were mostly of the “orthodox” and “proto-orthodox” persuasion) would want to change θεός to υἱός ? Isn’t it more likely that the change happened in the other direction ? Especially since μονογενὴς θεός, if genuine, is a hapax legomenon . You will notice that none of the theologically significant ideas in Scripture are one offs . The important ideas are generally repeated multiple times and in multiple books of the bible. In other words, had μονογενὴς θεός been genuine, we would have indisputably found mention of it elsewhere in Scripture.

Both θεός and μονογενὴς are used elsewhere. Neither are hapax.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Seems like upside down thinking to me. Which scribe ( and they were mostly of the “orthodox” and “proto-orthodox” persuasion) would want to change θεός to υἱός ? Isn’t it more likely that the change happened in the other direction ? Especially since μονογενὴς θεός, if genuine, is a hapax legomenon . You will notice that none of the theologically significant ideas in Scripture are one offs . The important ideas are generally repeated multiple times and in multiple books of the bible. In other words, had μονογενὴς θεός been genuine, we would have indisputably found mention of it elsewhere in Scripture.
You need to read up on text criticism. Lot's of help out there for you. Books too, if you like those. Here's a spot to begin:

 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Phrases are not normally considered hapax legomena. The terminology refers to individual words in a given corpus.

Nonsense. here:

In corpus linguistics, a hapax legomenon (/ˈhæpəks lɪˈɡɒmɪnɒn/ also /ˈhæpæks/ or /ˈheɪpæks/;[1][2] pl. hapax legomena; sometimes abbreviated to hapax, plural hapaxes) is a word or an expression that occurs only once within a context: either in the written record of an entire language, in the works of an author, or in a single text.

Address the issues I raised ,... last request.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
it's not nonsense. Regardless of the expansion in your definition above, it's normally used of single words.

Had you said this originally , I would not have made a fuss about it. But even this statement (bold above) is not true. For me to fully agree, you would have had to say the following : "it's normally used of single words in the GNT. "

In any case, you said this initially --

(1) Phrases are not normally considered hapax legomena. (2) The terminology refers to individual words in a given corpus.

Both your statements (blue and red bold above) are not true.

(1) A phrase, if it occurs only once within a context (either in the written record of an entire language, in the works of an author) can always legitimately be considered a hapax legomena. It is never wrong to refer to it as such.

(2) Following would have been more accurate: "The terminology refers to individual words or to a phrase in a given corpus." Your statement is misleading at best.

You just seem to have a hard time speaking the whole truth, like a natural born politician. That's the problem here.




And I certainly do not feel compelled to address any issue you raised. Last request? That's good, you won't be bothering me about it any more.

That's fine with me. I rest my case. :)
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Are you aware that the difference between two readings (the only begotten son vs god) is just one letter?

Absolutely. Precisely because of this, there is mischief to be had here on account of the nomina sacra forms of both θεός & υἱός.

My argument is how do you explain going from the anarthrous expression μονογενὴς θεός (if it is original) to the articular expression ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός almost everywhere and in the vast majority of manuscripts ? That's more than just a difference of one letter. It's also the addition of an entire article into the apparently "original" reading.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Absolutely. Precisely because of this, there is mischief to be had here on account of the nomina sacra forms of both θεός & υἱός.

My argument is how do you explain going from the anarthrous expression μονογενὴς θεός (if it is original) to the articular expression ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός almost everywhere and in the vast majority of manuscripts ? That's more than just a difference of one letter. It's also the addition of an entire article into the apparently "original" reading.

I thought about that. Why do you assume that "the only begotten son" came directly from "only begotten God"?

"The only begotten God" is attested in an early manuscript too, and that's only one letter to "the only begotten Son."

"Son" is only found in later manuscripts. How often is the better reading found in later manuscripts? I can't say I pay attention to that so I cannot say but my gut tells me it is rare or nonexistent.
 
Top