John 1:18
What I got from the reading:
The earliest manuscripts (P66, P75) and the best Alexandrian uncial text read monogenes theos. For some scholars this is enough to say it is the true reading.
However, the majority of textual groupings outside of the Alexandrian (e.g. Western, Caesarean, Byzantine) support monogenes huios.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
The author then turns to look at these textual groupings and points out:
1. When looking at Western manuscripts, the “quality” ones support the theos reading, including Aleph which is the earliest Western manuscript with this passage. So, despite the majority evidence for huios, theos could still be in the archetype for the Western tradition.
2. It is important to remember that, “in the early period (pre-180) there was no textual tradition in the West that was not shared with the East.” Therefore, the Alexandrian tradition is likely the stronger witness to the archetype – especially since it was more carefully controlled (I’m guessing that means in scribal transmission). So, majority huios readings does not necessarily represent the archetype.
3. In regards to the Caesarean grouping, there is debate about if this should even exist as a separate grouping; but keeping it as a grouping at least provides evidence that, in a larger geographical distribution, there is evidence that the theos reading again has a viable archetype outside of the Alexandrian grouping. HOWEVER, the majority of Caesarean texts do have the huios reading.
4. In regards to the Latin and Syriac traditions, huios is again the majority reading. The author then points out that theos is in some and it is impressive that it is found in the Peshitta (syrP) as the Peshitta is known to be “transmitted with remarkable fidelity.”
5. Theos is the exclusive reading in Arabic and Coptic traditions. And Coptic versions of the NT are some of the earliest. The huios reading is completely absent from them.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
In regards to church fathers, some can be quoted using both readings.
It seems unlikely that, around the time of the Arian controversy, a scribe would have needed to change huios to theos because even Arius was fine with the idea of calling Jesus God. And, actually, the evidence shows that the theos reading shows up well before the controversy.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Some internal observations by the author:
1. Monogenes huios is what we see elsewhere in John, so huios would makes good sense as the reading.
2. It is more likely that someone would substitute “Son” for “God” than vice versa. And since we have earlier readings of theos (not theos variants following the predominantly huios readings) it would be likely that huios is the variant from the original.