- This topic has 9 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I found a very interesting, and thorough-though condensed, article at bible.org. It is done by Brian J. Wright, a graduate student from Dallas Theological Seminary. He looks at a handful of debated passages and sizes up the reasons for and against different variants. In it, he does examine 2 Peter 1:1. I’ve tried to attach the pdf; but, in case it won’t go through again, the link is:
http://bible.org/article/jesus-theos-god-textual-examination.
(Theos in the url is actually with the Greek letters. I tried to insert that, but the “special character” section came up blank. :/ )He is a man who believes in the deity of Christ; but I read through the article and I think he tries to be as fair as he can about how the text could read.
-
John 1:1c
What I got from the reading:
It is very likely that it is meant to read just theos and not ho theos. This is based on the facts that 1.) The most reliable texts read this way 2.)Two manuscripts that read ho theos are from the eighth century and likely have scribal errors in John 1:1c and 3.) Although Greek has only a definite article, Sahidic has both a definite and indefinite article; and, in Sahidic manuscripts, the indefinite article is used in John 1:1c. This suggests that the translator was translating from a Greek manuscript that lacked a definite article.
I actually think it is important that John 1:1c read without a definite article because it retains the idea that Jesus is part of God (His word), but distinct from God the Father. Thus, denying modalism. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but it reflects what we see in the Old Testament: There is the LORD and the messenger of the LORD – who is sometimes referred to as the LORD, but, as the messenger of the LORD, is distinctly separate.
Still, in the reading, the author makes the point that, with or without the definite article, “the God” could still be read in John 1:1c
-
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.
-
John 20:28
What I got from the reading:
I realize now that his point is that, no matter, how a manuscript reads, it supports Jesus as theos.
I am a little confused by this assertion though. On the one hand, if it reads ho theos – which most pretty much all the manuscripts do – then it falls outside the Granville Sharp rule. But the author seems certain that this links Jesus and theos.
On the other hand, if it reads just theos – as it does in a single Western manuscript – then it links Jesus and theos because it falls under the Granville Sharp rule.
Since there are other passages of scripture where the Granville Sharp is called upon to show Christ’s deity, and this passage does not fall under that rule, I’m not sure what to make of the author’s assertions.
-
-
Acts 20:28
What I got from the reading:
1. The author makes note that, while we don’t see the phrase “the church of the Lord” in any other place in either the new testament or the writings of the apostolic fathers, we do see the phrase “the church of God” quite often in both of those.
2. Theou is accepted by scholars as the original because it is the more difficult reading than kuriou.
3. There is a proposition that “His own blood” makes sense as a reading because Acts 20:28 may “transmissionally” be dependent on 1 Thess. 5:9-10 and Ephesians 1:7. (I see what he means in regards to Ephesians because “His blood” is there, but I don’t find anything similar in the 1 Thess. passage.)
I confess that what the author said after this confused me until I did a little more “outside” research.
I understand that there is a theological discussion over whether tou haimatos tou idiou should be read adjectivally (“His own blood”) or substantivally (“blood of His own [possibly Son]). And if we take the reading tou idiou haimatos the adjectival form is more clear. Although according to this author,tou idiou haimatos is not the original reading, but would have been a reason that some scribes kept theou instead of kuriou.
The author does seem to conclude that the original reading included theou and haimatos tou idiou. And I am supposing that this means he supports a reading with both “God” and “blood of His own” because his last sentence is: “If Acts 20:28, therefore, equates Jesus with theos, it must do so on other “non-textual” grounds.” Although I wondered if this meant that Jesus cannot be directly linked to God just because the reading would indicate that God purchased the church with His own blood.
I’m hoping you can shed some more light with your understanding of the reading.
-
Galatians 2:20
What I got from the reading:
This is not a passage I have ever heard a variant reading proposed on. I have always heard it as “by faith in the son of God….”
Again, the author makes note that a reading, which I am concluding would read “by faith in the God and Christ,” has support from the two oldest manuscripts as well as early Alexandrian support (which was previously established as a solid witness among manuscripts).
But the author does discuss two arguments against theou kai xristou:
1. Nowhere else in scripture does Paul speak of God as the object of our faith. To this, the author replies that Romans 4:24 does.
2. Likely when a scribe was copying tou huiou tou theo, his eye passed over the first article (and, I imagine it follows, first noun) and arrived at the second use of tou. To this, the author replies that it only explains the tou theou variant and not the others.
Ultimately, the author does support “son of God” as the likely reading, though he doesn’t want to throw this other option out.
As I was looking at what he was saying about parallels in 1 Tim. 5:21 and 2 Tim. 4:1, I was confused as to why the reading theou kai xristou would support Jesus as theos. These passages in the letters to Timothy do not speak of Jesus as theos, but speak of God and Christ Jesus as two separate persons.
-
Hebrews 1:8
What I got from the reading:
The author starts out by looking at variant readings of eis ton aiona tou aionas. He notes that there are manuscripts that omit tou ainos, though it is “a small handful of concentrated MSS.” He then points out that it would be likely that the best reading includes tou ainoas because 1.) It is a direct quotation from Psalm 44:7 in the Septuagint (LXX) and Psalm 45:7 in the Masoretic Text (MT). 2.) The reading is found in some of the best and earliest manuscripts. 3.) Almost every time olam uod is found in the MT, the LXX uses tou ainos; and, if not tou ainos, then the LXX uses eis aiona aionos which is similar.
The reason that the author is examining eis ton aiona tou aionas is to get as close to what the Vorlage would have been as possible, so we can better see if Jesus is being presented as theos. In the case of Hebrews 1:8, the LXX may be the Vorlage.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
The author then moves on to examining if the verse should end in autou or sou. If autou, then theos is a subject-predicate nominative construction (“God is your throne…..”). If sou, theos is a nominative for vocative (“Your throne, O God……”). The vocative would seem to be the correct reading because that is what it is in the OT passage. He then references Caragounis for 5 reasons why the nominative for vocative is more likely.
The author also references Wallace to say that to use the subject-predicate nominate construction would not gives us a contrast between the angels (discussed in 1:7) and Jesus. Both of these would have God as their throne.
The author then discusses the different ways in which pros has been translated in various versions of the Bible. He points out that to not to have translated it as “to” left the door open for the autou variant in the text.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
The author makes note that sou is the better attested reading – although both are present in the Alexandrian tradition. But, outside of the Alexandrian traditions, all other traditions contain at least one sou reading and, only the Greek manuscripts – and 6 at that, contain an autou reading.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
At the end of this discussion, the author points out that Bart Ehrman likes to challenge that texts which are corrupted (that is to say, they support Jesus’ deity) in Hebrews 1:8 are corrupted in John 1:18 as well. The author’s reply to this is: that may be true, but it is only a part of the picture. There are plenty of manuscripts where some of the examined passages are “corrupted” while others are not. In conclusion, then, there are many manuscripts that contain at least one Jesus as theos reading in them…….so, no matter which passage this occurred in, a person could take away from that manuscript that Jesus is God.
-
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? 😉 )
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. 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.”
-
Conclusion:
The author uses a very good quote from Harris about why Jesus being referred to as theos in the NT is not the nail on which the faith in the deity of Christ hangs.
We have discussed the things he mentions before and I know why that isn’t necessarily true. I know that it is just as good of an argument to say that Jesus acted as God because He was God’s agent and so, of course, he would exercise divine functions (with the exception of creation).
I do think it is interesting that, in a lot of the discussed passages, theos or theou appears to either be the earliest reading or among earli-er readings or, in some manuscript families, the only reading. It would then seem that theos and theou are the originals. But I suppose one could argue that we just don’t know what the earliest reading actually is; and the earliest reading in one geographical area might be different from the earliest in another. Which is better? So that argument could go on ad infinitum.
I definitely gleaned some good things from this paper. I confess it is easy to read it and say that it seems to support what I already believed. It would be interesting if it was written by a unitarian. How would the perspective of the evidence change? 😉
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.