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

tc-list John 1:18 and UBS3,4

Expand Messages
  • Mr. Gary S. Dykes
    Dr. Cate wrote (in part): It seems somewhat odd to me that the NRSV would make a change to a B-rated reading in UBS4. Yes, I am familiar with the difficulties
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 3, 1999
      Dr. Cate wrote (in part):

      It seems somewhat odd to me that the NRSV would make a change to a
      B-rated reading in UBS4. Yes, I am familiar with the difficulties of
      translating 1:18 without "son" but that doesn't justify overturning
      textual evidence.

      Mr. Dykes replies:

      The "textual evidence" for John 1:18 varies, but basically the focus is
      between the words "Son" or "God" as being original (and one may want to
      recall one of Origen's, and a Vulgate witness', famous omission of either
      word following "uniquely-generated"). In determining which reading is the
      original, the critic should be aware that certain personal philosophies
      (theologies) may impinge upon one's decision.

      One fact which is clear about the UBS editions, is that they do usually give
      preference to the earliest witnesses, which is why each of them (editions
      1 - 4) gives the nod to "God", as does all editions of the NA handbooks.
      Along with the fact that this reading appears to be the more difficult, I am
      sure the UBS committee felt safe with its "B" rating here, though A. Wikgren
      wisely suggested a "D" rating here.

      The NAB referred to by J. Crea is surely a conflation, combining the
      alternatives into one reading which fits current/ancient Catholic (a.k.a.
      "western") liturgy quite well (a coincidence?). This conflation is also seen
      in the Sahidic version. Tasker, in my opinion, points to the correct text
      and hits upon the original (without the later "Son" or "God"), I quote
      Tasker in the appendix of THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, Oxford, by R.V.G. Tasker:
      page 424f: [note Tasker put "Son" in his text.]

      ...It was thought possible that the second alternative reading [the
      uniquely-generated Son] quoted, o monogenenhs, though it is represented only
      in a single MS. of the Latin Vulgate, might have given rise to the other

      Tasker is "responding" to one of Hort's dissertations on this passage (which
      I have not before me). Hort also suggests that there was no "controversy"
      (in the famous "Notes on Select Readings" W&H) surrounding either reading.
      To this I object. Bart Ehrman in his ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE, also
      brings good scholarship to bear upon the issue here, and suggests that the
      oldest witnesses did add "God" to an original "uniquely-generated". The
      original text to me, ...the uniquely-generated" (without "Son" or "God") was
      altered by theological opinions on this hot topic in early Christianity.
      Alexandrian versus Syrian versus Western.

      So Dr. Cate, there are times when the "textual evidence" can be misleading
      to those who are bound by the scientific canons of textual criticism. I know
      not Dr. Metzger's personal theology, but I know the methodology of the
      German critics - they usually follow the scientific method oblivious to any
      theological perspectives (in most cases). I also suggest that you rely upon
      your own theology for assistance in determining which variant is valid in
      CERTAIN passages. At times the majority may not be correct, I am usually
      suspect when everyone follows or is part of the "herd", obey the warning

      at your service,
      Mr. Gary S. Dykes
      visit this site:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.