tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2947203785093666890.post8226664345469336683..comments2023-05-19T01:39:26.341-07:00Comments on Bible Research: John 1:18 in the NIVMichael Marlowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04094927012917474680noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2947203785093666890.post-18276978990704497422011-08-30T15:49:17.061-07:002011-08-30T15:49:17.061-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nicholas Leonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17069813028795565883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2947203785093666890.post-14690225907484257852011-08-30T15:46:20.905-07:002011-08-30T15:46:20.905-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nicholas Leonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17069813028795565883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2947203785093666890.post-39086065178823122222011-08-14T21:22:53.816-07:002011-08-14T21:22:53.816-07:00Hi P.S.H.
It's true that the oldest extant Gr...Hi P.S.H.<br /><br />It's true that the oldest extant Greek MSS have the reading μονογενης θεος. But the attestation for μονογενης υιος is also very respectable, and more widespread. It is found in Codex Alexandrinus, in the Old Latin and Vulgate, and in the old Syriac versions. It <i>must</i> have existed in second-century Greek MSS for it to have been so dispersed in all regions, to be quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Athanasius, etc. from the Greek, by Tertullian from the Latin, and generally predominate in all streams of transmission. So the lack of an existing second-century MSS with the reading doesn't really mean much. The thing that decides the issue for me is the obvious improbability of the expression μονογενης θεος in the context of John's gospel and in the context of biblical theology as a whole. IMO this is just too "hard" internally.Michael Marlowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04094927012917474680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2947203785093666890.post-52410152972641020232011-08-14T15:38:55.700-07:002011-08-14T15:38:55.700-07:00What do you make of the argument that μονογενης θε...What do you make of the argument that μονογενης θεος, being the harder and earlier-attested reading, should be preferred?PHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12011728672116977010noreply@blogger.com