Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

hyios vs eklektos

Expand Messages
  • Brendan Gerard
    All critical editions of the NT (as far as I know) read hyios in John 1:34. Many exegetes prefer eklektos, which is the reading of Sinaiticus uncorrected and
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      All critical editions of the NT (as far as I know) read hyios in John
      1:34. Many exegetes prefer eklektos, which is the reading of Sinaiticus
      uncorrected and of several Latin and Syriac witnesses; it was probably
      the reading of Oxyrhyncus 208 (=P5) and 4445 (=P106); in both cases the
      text is damaged; in the latter the transcribers detect an epsilon.




      Does anyone have a good answer to the question: if eklektos is the
      authentic reading, why isn't it better attested in the Greek manuscript
      tradition? Is it a satisfactory response to say that the change to hyios
      occurred so early that it pervaded the MSS?




      (At the moment, the position I am taking in my doctoral thesis is
      cautiously in favour of hyios - largely on grounds of the external
      evidence - but cautiously, because I think it's possible that eklektos
      is authentic.)




      Brendan Gerard

      --
      Revd Brendan Gerard M.A., S.S.L.
      Kapellenweg 5
      D-88145 Opfenbach
      Tel + 49 8385 1625
      Mob. + 49 151 54952896

      <http://thingsinmotion.bgacademic.com>


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ramsey
      Brendan, You might check my NICNT commentary, where I suggested (p. 116) that eklektos may have been the reading in the tradition as it came down to the author
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Brendan,

        You might check my NICNT commentary, where I suggested (p. 116) that eklektos may have been the reading in the tradition as it came down to the author of John, who changed it to huios to link up with v 29 (the “Lamb” defined as “the Son,” in keeping with Christian interpretation of Gen 22), and with Nathanael’s confession in 1:49, and with the Johannine “Son” theology generally.

        Thus “Chosen” was actually changed to “Son,” but it was the Gospel writer who did the changing!

        Best wishes on your doctoral thesis,

        Ramsey Michaels

        From: Brendan Gerard
        Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:05 PM
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [John_Lit] hyios vs eklektos


        All critical editions of the NT (as far as I know) read hyios in John
        1:34. Many exegetes prefer eklektos, which is the reading of Sinaiticus
        uncorrected and of several Latin and Syriac witnesses; it was probably
        the reading of Oxyrhyncus 208 (=P5) and 4445 (=P106); in both cases the
        text is damaged; in the latter the transcribers detect an epsilon.

        Does anyone have a good answer to the question: if eklektos is the
        authentic reading, why isn't it better attested in the Greek manuscript
        tradition? Is it a satisfactory response to say that the change to hyios
        occurred so early that it pervaded the MSS?

        (At the moment, the position I am taking in my doctoral thesis is
        cautiously in favour of hyios - largely on grounds of the external
        evidence - but cautiously, because I think it's possible that eklektos
        is authentic.)

        Brendan Gerard

        --
        Revd Brendan Gerard M.A., S.S.L.
        Kapellenweg 5
        D-88145 Opfenbach
        Tel + 49 8385 1625
        Mob. + 49 151 54952896

        <http://thingsinmotion.bgacademic.com>

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Lupia
         P. Gerard Vulgata legit non elegit sed Filius Dei. Hoc est canonica versio - oder- Die Vulgata nicht lesen elegit aber Sohn Gottes.  et ego vidi
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
           P. Gerard

          Vulgata legit non elegit sed Filius Dei. Hoc est canonica versio - oder- Die Vulgata nicht lesen elegit aber Sohn Gottes. 


          "et ego vidi testimonium perhibui quia his est Filius Dei"

          Why do you want to use a crystal ball and make predictions??? The TC list does this sort of magic.



          Prof. Giovanni "John" N. Lupia III
          Parenti, Italia, New Jersey, USA; Beirut, Lebanon 
          (twitter account) @JohnNLupia
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
          http://www.reginacaelipress.com/
          https://sites.google.com/site/numismaticmallcom/
          God Bless Everyone


          ________________________________


          From: Brendan Gerard
          Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:05 PM
          To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [John_Lit] hyios vs eklektos

          All critical editions of the NT (as far as I know) read hyios in John
          1:34. Many exegetes prefer eklektos, which is the reading of Sinaiticus
          uncorrected and of several Latin and Syriac witnesses; it was probably
          the reading of Oxyrhyncus 208 (=P5) and 4445 (=P106); in both cases the
          text is damaged; in the latter the transcribers detect an epsilon.

          Does anyone have a good answer to the question: if eklektos is the
          authentic reading, why isn't it better attested in the Greek manuscript
          tradition? Is it a satisfactory response to say that the change to hyios
          occurred so early that it pervaded the MSS?

          (At the moment, the position I am taking in my doctoral thesis is
          cautiously in favour of hyios - largely on grounds of the external
          evidence - but cautiously, because I think it's possible that eklektos
          is authentic.)

          Brendan Gerard

          --
          Revd Brendan Gerard M.A., S.S.L.
          Kapellenweg 5
          D-88145 Opfenbach
          Tel + 49 8385 1625
          Mob. + 49 151 54952896

          <http://thingsinmotion.bgacademic.com>

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.