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

tc-list Ehrman on John1:18

Expand Messages
  • Mr. Gary S. Dykes
    Dr. M. Robinson wrote in part: As I recall, Ehrman argues specifically for the originality of the Byzantine reading Son in this location, on the supposition
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Dr. M. Robinson wrote in part:

      As I recall, Ehrman argues
      specifically for the originality of the Byzantine reading "Son" in this
      location, on the supposition that the Alexandrian reading of "God" was an
      "orthodox corruption" (this differs from Dykes' claim, so please correct
      me if I am wrong -- I don't have Bart's book close at hand, but I thought
      he argued for the originality of UIOS as opposed to the bare MONOGENHS as
      the original reading).


      Yes, you are correct, I apologize if I fostered the notion that Ehrman
      supported the reading without either "God" or "Son". He certainly does
      support "Son". My point was that he did see the use of "God" as an
      Alexandrine corruption. Thanks for your keen eye! (recall that I posit an
      article before the "bare MONOGENHS").


      at your service,
      Mr. Gary S. Dykes
      visit this site:
      http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.