2 Peter 1:1
What I got from the reading:
The majority of manuscripts favor theou over kuriou as a reading. Only 9 have kuriou. The author never mentions what the majority is, though.
Support for kuriou:
1. Perhaps the nomen sacrum got confused.
2. “Lord and savior” is a common phrase in 2 Peter.
3. Theou could have been an orthodox corruption
4. To use kuriou would have fallen in line with 2 Peter 1:2 where God and Jesus are distinguished.
Support for theou:
1. Even with kurios and theos being some of the first nomen sacrum, we do not see any viable variants for other passages in 2 Peter where either kurios or theos is used. So, in this particular verse, one seems to be variant of other.
2. A scribe might have recognized that “Lord and savior” is used a lot in 2 Peter and changed theou to kuriou 1:1 so that the ideas would harmonize throughout the epistle.
3. Kuriou may have been substituted so that 1:1 and 1:2 DO fall in line.
4. Theou is the more difficult reading. (Always, right? đŸ˜‰ )
5. It would seem that Jesus is referred to as tou theou because, if the manuscripts that contain theou meant to imply God the Father they would have used a different Greek construction. (And the majority of the manuscripts do contain theou.) (This point is more related to #1 and #2 below)
6. To use theou in 1:1 matches with the doxology in 3:18.
7. Theou may be used to better communicate the gospel to Gentiles.
8. The manuscript support for theou is earlier and bolstered by unanimity among all major published NT Greek texts.
9. As 2 Peter is one of the later NT books, having theou as the original would make sense in light of progressive revelation of who Jesus is.
If theou is the original, then:
1. Â Similar to #5, the Greek construction surely implies Jesus is God just as in 1:3 when “God and Father” is constructed that way.
2. It likely does apply to Jesus because “this epistle never uses the word Savior alone but always coupled with another name under the same article.”