Verse of the Week - 1 Timothy 3:16

Apology

Sorry, this is a little late, we have had some plumbing problems with a tap in our bathroom exploding and some other issues. But here we are, the Verse of the Week, a day late, but hopefully not a dollar short.

The Variant

Tregelles GNT representative of the 'Alexandrian' family: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

Scrivener's 1881 Textus Receptus: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

A third version found in the original text of the 4th century AD Greek-Latin diglot, Codex Claromontanus (D, 06*) has ὅ 'which was revealed' and a fourth, ὧ 'he revealed' is found in 061, a 5th century AD uncial. We can safely dismiss this pair of variants.

The Variant found in 1 Timothy 3:16 is one of those that splits translations into two competing camps. On the one hand are those following the Textus Receptus and Byzantine majority which read θς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί and the other in the form of Alexandrian and 'Free' texts  ὃς  ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί . In English this difference is between 'God was manifested in the flesh' and 'Who was manifested in the flesh'

The difference comes down to an emphatically Trinitarian statement that God the Son himself walked the earth in the flesh or a relative pronoun that clearly refers to the Son of God and his life in the flesh on the earth (1 John 4:2) but does not refer explicitly to deity.

Which is the correct reading?

The Evidence for ὅς  

The primary support for ὃς is found in some of the earliest Greek manuscripts, 01* 02* 04* 010 012 and 33. Later witnesses include 365 (XII), 442 (XII/XIII), 1175 (X), and 2127 (XII). These witnesses are almost all Category I or 'Alexandrian'. The Codices 010, 442 are Category II while 012, 365 are Category III. Codex 1175 and 2127 are not categorised. Codex l60 (1021 AD) also contains this variant.

Secondary support includes the Ethiopian translation (IV/V). Tertiary support comes from Latin translations of Origen (III) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (V) as well as original versions of Augustine (V), Dydmus (IV), Epiphanius (V), Cyril of Alexandria (V), and Jerome (V).

This version of the variant starts during the 4th century and continues to appear sporadically until at least the 12th or 13th century. There are few witnesses, but they are widespread geographically, though the majority originate in the southern and north western regions of the Roman empire.

The Evidence for θεὸς

The second major form of the variant naturally has more witnesses. It is found in Greek manuscripts from the 10th century AD onwards in the Byzantine family, correction of several of early witnesses for ὃς, the majority of lectionaries. The secondary witnesses include the Vulgate, the Geo ² , and Slavic translations. Tertiary witnesses include Pseudo-Dionysius (V), Apollinarius of Caesarea ( IV), Diodore (IV), Gregory of Nyssa (IV), Didymus the Blind (IV - this is a citation and is considered dubious), John Chrysostum (IV), and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (V).

In terms of Greek manuscripts, this variant is very late. No Greek New Testament manuscript in an original hand contains the variant prior to the 10th century. However, we can see that it does appear to be fairly early, appearing in the writings of Christians in around the 4th century as well as some relatively early translations (e.g. the Vulgate).

Arguments For Each Variant

From the time of the publication of Erasmus' original Greek text, the reading has been θεὸς. In the 19th century textual critics began to favour the other variant which caused a storm of controversy. Philip Comfort tells us in his New Testament Textual Commentary (pp. 662-663, 2008 Tyndale House Publishers Inc) in the entry for this verse:

Few textual problems generated so much stir and controversy in the nineteenth century as this one did. Many scholars entered the debate—and not without good reason, inasmuch as this verse is related to the doctrine of the incarnation. When the reading in TR and KJV (“God was manifest in the flesh”) was challenged by another reading (“he who was manifest in the flesh”), some thought the doctrine of God becoming man was being undermined.

And indeed, at first glance, it would seem that the discussion is an attack on the deity of Christ. Comfort continues:

Not so. The scholars who defended the reading with ὁς (“he who”) primarily did so because they realized that the second reading was clearly an emendation. The original scribes of א* A* C* wrote ὁς, which was then changed by later scribes in all three manuscripts to θεος (“God”).  The original scribe of D wrote ὁ (“which”), which was also then corrected to θεος (“God”).

I will not argue the variant based on theology and Christology and how it relates to the deity of Christ, that is beyond the scope of this post and this blog.

As with nearly all variants, we cannot determine why the variant arose, however two theories have been raised as possibilities:

1. That scribes copying the manuscripts accidentally read the Greek uncial letters OC as ΘC.
2. That scribes deliberately wrote ΘC when they read OC

The modern consensus is that it is highly unlikely that professional scribes and well trained monks copying this text would read the uncial text and wrongly conclude that  OC should read  ΘC.

It would make the most sense if ὃς is the original reading to change it to read θς, believing it to be a mistake or 'Arian corruption' rather than the other way round.

An argument for this is found in A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1 & 2 Timothy (2008, Lang, J. P., Schaff, P., & van Oosterzee, J. J. pg 45 (Washburn and Harwood translation)):

Paul might, indeed, from his Christological standpoint, have very justly written θεός; but it does not at all follow that he has done so. It is hardly credible that the original reading θεός should have been changed to θεὅς; but very explicable that the original ὅς should have been changed to θεός. Were θεός the true reading (Matthäi, Scholz, Rinck), it would be passing strange that such decisive proof-texts should never have been used by the orthodox church fathers in the Arian and other controversies; and, again, Cyril, in his reply to the Emperor Julian, who denied that Paul had ever called Christ θεός, has not appealed in a word to this passage, as he would almost surely have done had he known the Lectio Recepta.

As Comfort further explains:

But it is difficult to imagine how several fourth- and fifth-century scribes, who had seen thousands of nomina sacra, would have made this mistake. It is more likely that the change was motivated by a desire to make the text say that it was “God” who was manifest in the flesh. But in the original text, the subject of the verse is simply “who”—which most translators render as “he” and which most commentators identify as Christ.

To be sure, the reading of θεὸς would be a perfect counter to the likes of Arians and the anti-Christian and Neoplatonist emperor Julian the Apostate who denied that Jesus was even a prophet, let alone the Christ and divine Son of God. But there are no quotations found in any of the fathers addressing these and referring to this verse as proof against their arguments.

Philip Schaff in his A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version (1883, Harper Brothers) argued for ὅς on the basis of the wider New Testament context. On page 199 he says:

We may say that God "was manifested in the flesh," but not that he was "justified in the spirit," "seen of angels," "received up in glory." All this, however, can be said with perfect propriety of Christ as the God-man. And he is undoubtedly meant by the relative pronoun. And even the first verb suits better to the language of John, who does not say "God was made flesh," but "the Word was made flesh."

Ultimately, as with many variants, we have no very early manuscripts (e.g. 1st or 2nd century) containing the verse and it appears that no second century Christian writers quote this verse, though the Epistle to Diognetus does seem to cite and paraphrase the verse, though it is inconclusive as to what that author's Bible actually said or that he really had this particular verse in mind as the 'He' referred to is God sending the Word so that the Word might manifest God in the world:

For which It has been proposed to connect this with the preceding sentence, and read, “have known the mysteries of the Father, viz., for what purpose He sent the Word.” reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world ; and He, being despised by the people, was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles.

Summary

The evidence, in my opinion, does lean most strongly towards ὅς being the original reading. The significantly earlier appearance in manuscripts, the later editing of multiple manuscripts to change ὅς to θς, the early citations, and there being no use of the verse to counter Arian and pagan arguments all lend weight to the argument that it is original reading.

Theology and number of witnesses do not mean much if the primary witnesses first appear 500 or more years after the other variant's appearance in primary witnesses. Coupled with the fact that ardent opponents of the Arians such as Augustine who directly quotes the reading as 'quod manifestatum est in carne' or 'who was manifested in the flesh' (Augustine of Hippo, In Evangelium Ioannis Tractatus Centum Viginti Quatuor, Tractate 72.3) also stand as a witness for ὅς as against θεὸς.

The Ecclesiastes Journal Is Now Live

 As the title says, the journal for Swete's version of Ecclesiastes is now available on the Downloads page.

The next three will be Esther, Daniel, and then Judges.

Verse of the Week - Ephesians 5:21

 This week's variant is an interesting one.

Many Greek texts, primarily Byzantine and TR, read:

21 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ. (Hodges Farstad, GNT Acc. to f35, TR)

While most others read

21 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ. (Robinson Pierpont, all Critical texts)

The story

I first came across this variant in a stream by Dwayne Green (YT channel) where he mentioned the variant amongst others. This piqued my interest and I decided to look into it. The next thing I knew I had checked over a thousand separate Greek New Testament, medieval commentaries, Latin Vulgate, and 'Vetus Latina' (Old Latin) manuscripts and compiled a spreadsheet in Excel to track the variant from the second century AD to the 18th century AD.

The result was, to say the least, interesting.

When it comes to determining the 'originality' of a variant there are a variety of approaches:

• Those who in the 'Alexandrian' (Category I, II) camp generally favour the earliest, most difficult readings, often excluding the majority readings.
• The TR only camp will generally ignore anything not found in the various Textus Receptus editions.
• For the Byzantine Priority camp the majority reading is most commonly the reading favoured over any reading agreed to be 'Alexandrian'.

Obviously, this I am painting with a broad brush and this is not meant to demean any of the positions, however, this is the broad approaches of each.

So how would each determine the validity of this one?

I've already basically given the answer away above. For the most part the Byzantine and TR camps choose θεοῦ over Χριστοῦ.

θεοῦ or Χριστοῦ?

I started my research on this variant by looking at the CNTTS apparatus as it is one of the most comprehensive apparatuses available. It's not perfect, I've found errors, but for the most part it's highly accurate and often has more GNT witnesses recorded than the UBS Apparatus. This began to paint a picture that I didn't expect. However, there were not enough witnesses and so I went to the list of Greek New Testaments on Wikipedia and one by one opened them up in the Muenster Virtual Manuscript room to look at this verse and noted the variant on a spreadsheet I created for this project.

I started this research with about 40 MSS and ended up with 668. I also found several new variants that had not been noted (though perhaps they had been found before me). These were κυ, κν, θεου, θω, and Omit NS. 

When we look at the following results table we see my findings:

At first glance it would appear that the correct variant is θεοῦ - it is found in about 65% (rounded to the nearest whole %) of all catalogued and available manuscripts while Χριστοῦ is found in a mere 35%.

It is quite clear cut, it has to be θεοῦ right? It is found in the vast majority of the witnesses, so it must be that one.

Well, you would be wrong if you thought so.

When we look at the next table, we can see a clear pattern forming (click to enlarge):

So, what are looking at here? Simply put, there is a pattern that I believe means Χριστοῦ, the minority reading, is the true original meaning. How so? Well, when we look at the above table we see that Χριστοῦ first appears in the 3rd century AD (III). It is first found in a papyrus P46 in the form of the Nomina Sacra χρυ. There are three other papyri (49, 92, and 132) with Ephesians, but they are lacunose (missing) in 5:21 and are of no help.

Next, in the 4th century (IV) we see 2 witnesses with χυ a slight variation on P46's form. These are the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus (GA 01) and Codex Vaticanus (GA 03). Moving to the 5th century there are two more manuscripts, Alexandrinus (02) and Freerianus (aka Washingtonianus, 016). In the 6th (VI) century there is a single witness, Codex Fuldensis (F), one of the earliest Vulgate manuscripts and one of the earliest complete Diatessarion manuscripts (a Gospel Harmony by Tatian).

Unfortunately, the 7th (VII) century is barren of any witnesses. However, with the founding of some of the earliest monasteries we see witnesses beginning to appear again. In this case it is another Latin witness, Codex Amiatinus (A), the earliest known complete Latin Vulgate.

In the 9th century (IX) a spate of new variants appear, these being ιυ χυ, ιυ χρυ, κυ, and κν. These variants are found only in 6 manuscripts, some being the Latin of a Greek/Latin diglot or interlinear. Apart from singular appearances in the 10th (κν), 11th (κυ), 12th and 13th (χω) these variants disappear from the record and can be safely dismissed as intrusions.

It is not until the 10th century that θεοῦ first appears in 22 manuscripts. The next century there are 52 and it reaches a peak in the 14th century (XIV) after which it tapers off until the 18th century (XVIII) when some of the last handwritten manuscripts were copied.

Through these centuries the variant χριστοῦ continues steadily and reaches a peak of 35 in the 12th and 13th centuries and is last seen in the 17th century (XVII).

Categories, Commentaries, and Translations

In the image above you can see another pattern clearly laid out. Apart from appearing in nearly every century from the 2nd to the 17th, the variant χριστοῦ also appears in literally every Aland Category. It's found in 18 uncategorised witnesses, 102 of unknown category, 17 commentaries, Latin Vulgates, and three slightly different variants (χρυ, ιυ χυ, and χυ ιυ) in Vetus Latina manuscripts.

In contrast the variant θεοῦ is found only in Category II (2), III (8), V (81), uncategorised (32), unknown category (250), and commentaries (75). Unlike χριστοῦ there are no Alexandrian, Western, or Latin witnesses.

Conclusion

It is true that θεοῦ is found in the majority of the manuscripts. But the evidence that stands against its originality is the fact that there are no witnesses existing before the 10th century. It suddenly appears and then explodes in numbers as it is copied in manuscript after manuscript, mostly in monasteries on Mount Athos.

Χριστοῦ is found in manuscripts ranging from Egypt in the south to Anatolia in the north east to Italy in the West. It is found in manuscripts copied in Egyptian monasteries such as St Katherine's, by individual scribes, and even 7th century British monks (Amiatinus). The categories range from pure 'Alexandrian' to 'Free' to 'Western' to 'Byzantine'. It is also found in every century from the 3rd to the advent of printing.

Based on the evidence, we can only conclude that χριστοῦ is the original reading. True, it forms only one third of the known witnesses but the centuries long consistent appearance of this variant across all categories versus the late appearance of θεοῦ in the 10th century, seven centuries after χριστοῦ, and the restricted categories weigh strongly in favour of χριστοῦ.

Unless one is working with strictly contained families of manuscripts such as the Textus Receptus or Family 35 there is no reason to accept θεοῦ as being the original reading.

Why Θεοῦ Though?

We could understand perhaps why θεοῦ appeared - in all other verses where we are told to 'fear' someone it is God (θεοῦ) who is the subject. But, in Ephesians 5:21 it is Christ (χριστοῦ) we are told to fear. Given the number of verses telling us to 'fear God' it is almost reasonable to think that the verse specifying Christ instead of God might be an error and that χριστοῦ should be 'corrected' to θεοῦ. If you are a monk copying a manuscript in a monastery and you don't have access to a computer and a spreadsheet app nor to the hundreds of copies of Ephesians, there is no way to check which is correct. You have to either stick with what is written your exemplar or make an executive decision to change the reading to what you think it should be. It seems that at least one monk made this decision, wrongly as it turns out.

But, we can be confident that χριστοῦ is in fact the correct reading and that, barring the discovery of a first or second century manuscript of Ephesians reading otherwise, was the name used in Paul's autograph of Ephesians.

If you are feeling a bit nerdy and want to dig through a spreadsheet of my findings, you can find it on the Downloads page. If you are using MS Excel the second tab is filled with check boxes while in LibreOffice Calc (and maybe others) these are shown as either 'TRUE' or 'FALSE', but the data doesn't change.

Lamentations Journal

 I have created the journal for Θρῆνοι (Lamentations) and it is available on the Downloads page. As with the Song of Songs I have converted the text to prose layout and formatted the text to make it as short as reasonable to save paper for anyone who wishes to print it out.

Next week will be Ἐκκλησιαστής then Ἐσθήρ and Δανιήλ.

New Series - Weekly Variants

Starting this week I will begin posting what I hope will be a weekly discussion of a variant found in Codex Alexandrinus along with evidence believed to stand for and against. Today will be the first such post, this one discussing the major variant at John 1:18 between υἱός and θεός.

The variant - John 1:18

There are two major versions of this verse:

1. ¹⁸ θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

This version using θεὸς is found in the majority of the Greek New Testament editions following the 'Alexandrian' tradition, the 'Critical texts', this example is from the (in)famous Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (WH GNT). English translations that are translated from 'Critical' GNTs such as WH or the NA/UBS generally follow this variant.

For example the Updated American Standard Version (UASV), a modern revision based on the American Standard Version (ASV) reads:

¹⁸ No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him fully known. 

Which is a departure from the ASV which had 'Son' in this verse and is mirrored in some other modern English translations such as the NASB 95 ('the only begotten God') and LSB ('the only begotten God') but not in others based on the ASV such as the World English Bible (WEB) ('the only born Son') and Refreshed ASV ('the only begotten Son').

¹⁸ Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

The second follows the Byzantine majority position including the so-called 'Textus Receptus (TR) that forms the basis for translations such as the King James Version (KJV also known as the 'Authorised Version (AV)):

¹⁸ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

The Evidence For Each Position

There are more than a few variants that are difficult to determine which is the most accurate version. In some ways this one is one of those. Both variants appear early in the history of the New Testament's transmission.

The variant θεός first appears in Papyrus 66 (P66) which is commonly believed to have been written somewhere between 150 and 250 AD - this is about 60 to 150 years after John is traditionally believed to have been written (i.e. c.96 AD). It is also found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria who died around 215 AD.

Seems conclusive, right? The variant is clearly very early, dating from the second century AD, so it must be the right one!

Well... no, not so fast, because the other version, υἰός, is also found in relatively early manuscripts and quotes. For example, the late second century Christian scholar Clement of Alexandria (a contemporary to P66) quoted the verse three times in his writings and in two of the three he used 'υἰός' and in one he used 'θεός'. He also quoted an early Gnostic named Theodotus the Gnostic (2nd c. AD) twice and used each variant once in his quotes. Early manuscripts such as Alexandrinus (GA 02, c.400 AD) and Washingtonius (GA 032 - 4th/5th c) also have υἰός.

So, How Can We Know Which is Right?

Do not despair friend, this one is fairly easy to determine.

How? By the spread of exemplars and the traditions from which the witnesses from which each variant comes. Let us take a look, but first a 'short' introduction to textual criticism and the textual families to give some background.

Categorising Texts - A Brief Introduction

Johann Albrecht Bengel, an 18th century German scholar was the first to propose textual families with his 'African' and 'Asiatic' families in 1734. This was refined by Johann Jakob Wettstein who first proposed the now familiar 'Western', 'Alexandrian', and 'Byzantine' families between 1774 and 1807. In 1777 another German scholar Johann Jakob Griesbach produced a list of nine manuscripts that he believed to be 'Alexandrian.' In 1808 Johann Leonard Hug proposed the theory that the Alexandrian text was a refinement of what he called a 'wild' text, which he thought to be something like the Western text of Codex Bezae rather than the 'Free' text of Gregory's Category IV.

The first to propose a 'Critical' text was English scholar and theologian Richard Bently who in 1721 thought that a revised Greek text could be based on Codex Alexandrinus and began working with 02 and a number of other manuscripts categorised as either Byzantine or which remain uncategorised. This work was completed by Karl Lachmann in 1846 in the form of his 'Novum Testamentum Graecae ex recensione Caroli Lachmanni', a complete GNT with a very sparse set of footnotes that give no witnesses but do sometimes provide alternative readings in the form of 'x = y'.

During the course of the 19th century various scholars such as Lachmann, John Mill, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, Samuel Tregelles, Constantin von Tischendorf, and Eberhard Nestle who believed that the Alexandrian text was the 'urtext' or 'original text' of the Greek New Testament. These men produced various 'Critical' texts based on their ideas and building on the work of those who went before them.

The Alexandrian text (Category I) these men championed is a type found originally in Egypt and the majority of examples have been found or traced to this region. It appears during the 2nd century and is found in hundreds of early manuscripts, sometimes mixed with early Byzantine (Category II when mixed and V when the bulk of a book) and Western readings (Category IV). Though they became rare manuscripts of this family were still being copied into the 13th century (e.g. Revelation of GA 2053 and 2062).

Favouring the TR and Byzantine text were men such as Daniel Whitby (ardent opponent of Mill), Frederick Nolan, John William Burgon, and Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener.

This process has continued into the 20th and 21st centuries with refinements such as Gregory's Categories of texts splitting manuscripts in to Category I, II, III, IV, V and uncategorisable (i.e. examples that are too short or too damaged to place in a category).

A movement defending the Byzantine family also began in the 19th century with men such as Burgon and continued into the 20th century championed by scholars such as Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (the Majority Text - 1982), Maurice Robinson (The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform 1991, 2005, 2018 with William Pierpont), and Wilbur Pickering (The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 - 2014).

The Byzantine text forms the majority of manuscripts and appears in witnesses at around the same time as the Alexandrian text and often in some books of an early manuscript along with Western (Cat IV), Free (Cat III) and Alexandrian (Cat I) in other books. A good example of this is Codex Alexandrinus which leans heavily towards Byzantine in the Gospels and 'Free' in the remainder of the New Testament and generally Alexandrian in the Septuagint. From about the 8th century the bulk of Byzantine manuscripts are found in Greece and Anatolia, the heart of the Byzantine Empire. This is not surprising as during the 7th century Arab invaders began conquering and colonising the southern regions of the Byzantine empire and imposing their religion, Islam, on the inhabitants, which severely restricted the copying of Christian texts including the Bible after this time.

The Stabby Bit At the Tip

So, what is the point of what I've just written?

This is one of those examples where not only the lifespan of the variants, but also the spread of textual families gives us a reasonable answer as to what is the correct variant and in the case of John 1:18 we have a definitive answer.

Looking at the witnesses we see a clear pattern. In favour of 'θεός' we have seven known manuscripts - P66, P75, 01, 03, 04*, 019, and 33 supporting this reading. All except 019 are Alexandrian (Cat I), 019 is Category II. The newest is 33, a minuscule dated to about the 9th century. A handful of early translations (Syriac, Georgian, Sahidic, and Bohairic Coptic) as well as a few quotes from early Christian writers give additional support.

On the other hand, the earliest manuscript witness for 'υἰός' are Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Washingtonius which are all dated to the late 4th or early 5th century. This is followed by dozens of other manuscripts, translations (most Vulgate manuscripts, some Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, and Slavic), all Lectionaries containing John, not to mention many early Christian writers. As far as I can tell, there are no Category I or II manuscripts but Category III (Free - e.g. Family 13), Category IV (Western - all in the form of 'Italic' or Old Latin manuscripts), and V (all Byzantine) are strongly represented with the latter being the bulk of the examples.

Outliers

There are two other variants that can be dismissed with confidence since their witnesses consist entirely of a couple of translations and three quotes. These are:

Μονογενὴς υἱὸς θεοῦ - VI/VII Old Latin codex q along with one Latin quote from Irenaeus (of three), and one quote by Ambrose (of 11 apparent quotes)

ὁ μονογενής - a handful of Vulgate MSS and Ps-Vigilius (5th century 1 of 2)

Oddly, the 2020 edition of the NASB reads 'God the only Son' which would be a version of the first of these minor variants. The fact they have 'Son' in italics indicates they are trying to find a balance between the two primary variants and the resemblance to this particular variant is coincidental.

Conclusion

This variant seems to be clear cut. It is divided clearly between a small number of early Alexandrian manuscripts, a few translations, and a handful of quotes by early Christian writers for 'god' on one side and on the other side for 'son' is supported by many hundreds of manuscripts, numerous early translations, all lectionaries, and many, many quotes by early writers.

Obviously, we cannot be one hundred percent certain that 'υἰός' is the true and original reading because we do not have any first century examples of the Gospel of John, but given the preponderance of evidence pushes us in this direction, we can be highly confident it is indeed the correct reading.

We can safely dismiss the outliers, since they have very little support. But it would be rash to dismiss 'υἰός' since it has the strongest support across the board. The only reason I can see to do so is a rather blind adherence to the Alexandrian family that ignores the evidence because it doesn't fit a position.

The evidence for 'υἰός' dates from the second century in the form of quotes and continues until the advent of movable type printing ended copying of the Greek New Testament by hand. Support for 'θεός' is only found in a tiny number of manuscripts, translations, and quotes and is found no later than the 9th century in the case of GA 33 after which time it disappears from the manuscript record.

*Note* It's important to understand that neither variant has any effect on Christology or any doctrine. Jesus is called 'θεός' in verse 1 of John and 'υἰός' in many other verses, so this is a variant that changes literally nothing except a word in a verse. So have no fear if you read one or the other in your GNT or a translation, you are not being misled - both terms apply to the Only begotten Son of God and both are accurate. It is just a question of what did the text really say and not of theology or Christology.

Where did it come from?

It is possible that 'θεός' may have appeared because of John 1:1 and some scribes believing that 'υἰός' may be an error moving them to replace it with 'θεός', one of the words used to describe the Son of God in that verse. It is unlikely that it came through confusion in reading the Nomina Sacra since the earliest exemplars are written in Uncial or Majuscule (all capitals) script. In this style of writing 'υἰός' was written ΥϹ while 'θεός' was written as ΘϹ. It would be very hard to mistake the one for the other.

Final Thought

Wrapping this very long first post up it is almost entirely certain that 'υἰός' is the correct reading. Between the weight of witnesses of all types and the remarkably uniform split between the Alexandrian family and all other families, there is little reason to see 'θεός' as the correct reading.

At some point I will create a page with more information on textual families and textual criticism to serve as a permanent reference for future posts on this subject. Until then this should help understand at least some of the things I have mentioned in this post. Succeeding posts will not include the relevant section in this post and should be significantly shorter. I would also like to create a page with information on major manuscripts to help with understanding these.

Come back this weekend for the next Journal upload if you are using those and next Wednesday (Australian time) for the second 'Verse of the Week.'

Song of Songs Journal Now Live

 As I promised I've uploaded the journal for the Greek Septuagint version Song of Songs (also known as the Song of Solomon and Canticles in English and Ασμα Ασματων in Greek). It is available as a PDF on the Downloads page.

Song of Songs is a poetry book and usually formatted as such, particularly in modern editions such as Swete's. I could have kept it formatted as poetry but it would be more than twice as long as the prose formatting I used. Poetry formatting would not be a problem for those using devices such as tablets and PCs to do journaling, but for those who might want to print it out and work by hand, this is obviously going to consume a lot more paper. If there's any demand for the poetical formatting I might make those for the poetic books such as Song, the Psalms etc once I have all the canonical books completed and uploaded.

Next week I will post Lamentations (Θρῆνοι) and (God willing) the week after will be Ecclesiastes (Ἐκκλησιαστής - 12 chapters and 222 verses), then Esther (Ἐσθήρ - 16 chapters, 265 verses), and so on.

I also plan to start posting a 'Verse of the Week' each Wednesday (Australian time) that I will post on X and my blog. I will start with variants in Codex Alexandrinus as well as interesting features and observations and perhaps expand to include other interesting codices in the future. Alexandrinus is a very large manuscript and there's a lot to work with.

In the meantime, I pray it blesses you, helps you in your journey to learn Biblical Greek and to draw closer to God through his inspired Scriptures.

Ruth Journal is Live

 As I promised in my last update I have made the next journal, this being Ruth (Ῥούθ). The A4 portrait version is linked on the download pages. Enjoy.

I intend to complete all the canonical books first and so the next will be the Song of Songs (Ἆσμα Ἀσματον) next weekend followed by Lamentations (Θρῆνοι).

The Plan 

I really have no set plan for which will come next, it's mostly down to which remaining book has the least verses. Song of Songs has 8 chapters but 117 verses while Lamentations has 5 chapters and 154 verses.

The length of some books such as Psalms (151 psalms and 2,534 verses including the non-canonical Psalm 151) may make the books unwieldy for printing and thus I may split them. Traditionally Psalms is broken up to 5 separate books and I may split the journals in the same manner.

 The main determiner of this will be how big the files are. Computers, tablets/mobile phones, and the internet can handle pretty large files today, but even so a modern PC or tablet is still happier with a file that is no bigger than a couple of megabytes than one that is 10 or 20. So far all the LXX journals are about 400-500 KB and the GNT journals no more than 300 (Luke is the largest at 301 KB). So perhaps sticking to that is the best plan. But if even the biggest such as Genesis (50ch and 1,530 vss) weigh in at less than 2Mb then I'll probably leave them as a single book.

After I've finished the canonical books I'll start on the Apocryphal books and perhaps some early Christian writings such as 1 and 2 Clement, Barnabas, the Didache etc.