THE GLORY AS OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF
THE FATHER:
A DEFENSE OF JOHN 1:18 AS FOUND IN THE
AUTHORIZED KING JAMES BIBLE
By -Jesse
M. Boyd
Table
of Contents:
*This paper is hosted by Bible
Believers Baptist Church, Union Gap, Washington. Feel free to
link to this page or download it for study purposes, but please do not
post it in your websites unless it remains as it is found here in its entirety.
For more information feel free to contact Pastor
Thomas Mowery
A
Survey of the External Evidence
A
Survey of the Internal Evidence
Theological
Observations Concerning John 1:18
MANUSCRIPT
EVIDENCE CONCERNING JOHN 1:18
PATRISTIC
EVIDENCE CONCERNING JOHN 1:18
WITNESSES
THAT SEEM TO FAVOR “qeoV”BY
QUOTING JOHN 1:18
WITNESSES
WITH ALLUSIONS AND REFERENCES THAT SUPPOSEDLY FAVOR “qeoV”
GREEK
WITNESSES THAT CLEARLY FAVOR “uioV”
LATIN
WITNESSES THAT QUOTE JOHN 1:18 WITH FILIUS .
FATHERS
WHO QUOTE JOHN 1:18 WITH BOTH READINGS
JAMES
WHITE & D.A. CARSON EXPOSED
D.A.
Carson—The King James Version Debate
James
White—The King James Only Controversy
This
brief excursus is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved
down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand.Recognizing
that, as Martin Luther once said, “The Bible is like a lion; it does not
need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself,” I hereby
construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word
of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible.Wthout
a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal
relationship with the Living Word.
Secondly,
it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives
that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take
for granted.Thank-you for your sacrifice
and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.
Last,
but not least, I dedicate this paper to my seminary professor, Dr. David
Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working
knowledge of the Greek language.No
biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility
and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students.The
reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the proper
reading in John 1:18 are to be laid out in this paper.Despite
disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God.I
pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation and consequently
change your opinion in this matter.
“And
after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite.And
the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece
of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines.But
he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the
Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory.”
-II
Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M.
Boyd
THE GLORY AS OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF
THE FATHER:
A DEFENSE OF JOHN 1:18 AS FOUND IN THE
AUTHORIZED KING JAMES BIBLE
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son [o monogenhV uioV], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”(Authorized Version).
“No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God [monogenhV qeoV], who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.(New American Standard Bible).[1]
Because
of this predicament, the general consensus of textual critics is to cast
doubt on the integrity of the traditional text in favor of the reading
found in the “oldest and best manuscripts.”[2]For
example, A.T. Roberston, perhaps the greatest Greek scholar America has
ever produced, writes, “The best old Greek manuscripts read monogenes
theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text.”[3]No
persuasive evidence whatsoever is given to back up such a dogmatic claim.It
is merely assumed to be correct.In
light of such hastiness of judgment, along with the theological implications
of the passage in question, an investigation is warranted.The
purpose of this excursus is to construct a defense for the reading of John
1:18 as preserved in the Authorized King James Bible over and against the
supposed “original reading” found in most modern English versions.This
will be done by examining both the internal and external evidence.Moreover,
an attempt will be made to determine why the variant reading arose while
taking into consideration theological implications concerning the divine/human
nature of Jesus Christ.May God Almighty
guide this quest.
A
second observation involves the testimony of a
(4th century). Although strong,it
is weakened by the fact that a corrector’s hand has supplanted qeoV
with uioV.[9]Thus,
the value of the reading cannot be properly estimated until more is known
about the date of the correction and the reason for it.It
is easily conceivable that the corrector saw an error in the original mss
and set out to correct it.At this
point, it is interesting to note that approximately nine correctors worked
on this mss over a period of several centuries.[10]This
is hardly a credible witness![11]Sinaiticus’
testimony is also questionable considering the obvious “carelessness of
the transcriber.”[12]In
the very verse in question, the words “o
wn” are omitted before “eiV
ton kolpon.”
Codex
Vaticanus (B / 4th century) also suffered at the hands of correctors.Recent
technology has shown that at least two editors worked on the manuscript,
one being as late as the twelfth century.John
1:18 is one of 7,578 places where B differs from the traditional text found
in the majority of extant witnesses.Furthermore,
according to Burgon, 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 entire sentences are
missing from B in the Gospels alone.[13]Such
facts serve to throw doubt on this witness when itgoes
up against 99% of all extant mss, practically all of the ancient versions,
and overwhelming testimony of the early Church Fathers, as is the case
with John 1:18.
Before
proceeding with the external evidence, it must be pointed out that the
changes in a
and B, the towers behind which the textual critics hide on this verse,
are
not the same changes.According to
Hoskier, these two mss differ from each other over 3000 times in the four
Gospels.[14]Burgon
goes on to say argue that is easier to find two consecutive verses in which
the two differ from one another than two in which they completely agree.[15]
In
addition to a
and B, qeoV is
found in two other uncials—the supposed original hand of C (5th
century) and L (8th century).All
four of these, however, omit the definite article before “monogenhV
qeoV.”[16]Metzger
argues that the anarthous use appears to be more primitive based on its
appearance in John 1:1.[17]However,
John 1:1 involves a definite subject, stative verb, and an anarthous predicate
nominative.Colwell’s Rule states
that anarthous predicate nominatives that precede the copula are customarily
definite in meaning.Such is not
the case with John 1:18 where the lack of the article would render nothing
short of “a begotten god.”[18]Thus,
Abbot writes, “It seems hardly possible that the omission of the article
can be correct; but if this be an error, it throws some suspicion on the
reading which accompanies it.[19]
QeoV,
in addition to the aforementioned, is found in one minuscule (33, with
the definite article), two ancient versions (Syriac Peshitta, and the Coptic),
a late revision of the Georgian version, and the margin of the Harclean
Syriac.The two Syriac versions
and the Georigan revision omit the definite article while the Coptic retains
it.
The
manuscript evidence for uioV,
on the other hand,is
great.It is found in numerous uncials,
including a2,
C3, and A (one of the four earliest).Moreover,
it enjoys the witness of every single cursive minuscule except one (33).This
amounts to several hundred in number.The
ancient versions also constitute a credible witness.“UioV”
enjoys unanimous testimony from the Old Itala, Vulgate, Armenian, Ethioptic,
and Slovinic as well as the Harclean Syriac (in the text), Curetonian Syriac,
and the Palestinian Syriac.Thus,
we are faced with a small number of old mss and a few versions over and
against a myriad of later mss and generally older versions.In
the eyes of many textual scholars, this evidence favors the former.Thus,
the evidence of the early Church Fathers must come in to offset the supposed
stasis..
If
there is any balance in the external evidence whatsoever at this point,
the pendulum most assuredly swings in favor of uioV
when one considers the testimony of the Church Fathers.[20]Several
observations are in order.First
of all, the evidence contained in the UBS' critical apparatus is faulty
and misleading.A thorough perusal
of Abbot’s article, “On the Readings of John i.18,” makes this truth abundantly
clear.Several listings are incomplete,
many important Fathers are not listed, and others are misrepresented.All
in all, four Fathers seem to favor qeoV,
quoting John 1:18 with that reading.These
include Clement of Alexandria (194), the Excerpta Theodoti (date
unknown), Epiphanius (368), and Didymis of Alexandria (370).Three
patristic witnesses possibly allude to the passage with the reading qeoV (II
Synod of Ancyra, Gregory of Nyssa, and Fulgentius), but all three cases
are far from certain.On the other
side of the coin, Abbot provides a partial list ofGreek
witnesses, thirty-two in number beginning with the earliest extant testimony
(Irenaeus, A.D. 178) and going up through the twelfth century, that clearly
favor uioV.Many
of these expressly quote John 1:18 with that reading multiple times.[21]
As far as the Latin Fathers are concerned, no quotation that reads “unigenitus
Deus”[22]
has ever been produced.Abbot provides
a sampling of fourteen Fathers, including Tertullian (200), Hilary (354),
Victorinus (360), Ambrose (374), and Jerome (378).These,
in particular, were well aquatinted with Greek and occasionally consulted
the New Testament in its original language.Thus,
their testimony goes beyond the Latin tradition.[23]Finally,
three Fathers (Origen, Basil of Caesarea, and Cyril of Alexandria) appear
to be indecisive, exhibiting both readings in their writings.
In
estimating the whole of the external evidence, one should not dismiss the
wide geographical distribution of the witnesses for “o
monogenhV uioV.”According
to Abbot, they represent every important division of the Christian world—Syria,
Antioch, Alexandria, Arabia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Armenia, Caesarea, Constantinople,
Rome, and the whole of the Western Church.[24]The
testimony for qeoV,
besides being much more limited in number, is almost entirely restricted
to Egypt.[25]This
fact is interesting because according to Scrivener, the North African Church
corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150.[26]An
ancient Western Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century)
clearly described this unfortunate occurrence.[27]Apparently,
this is what happened with John 1:18, for no other explanation can satisfactorily
explain the external evidence.
According
to James White, qeoV
is the reading that best explains the rise of other variants. He is thus
appealing to another faulty canon of modern textual criticism, one that
is coated with subjectivity and speculation.No
one can really know for certain exactly how variants arose, and oftentimes,
what the editors see as the best explanation is quite ludicrous.[30]White
claims that the difference in morphology between qeoV
and uioV
is so great that the former could have never arisen from the later.Therefore, qeoV
is the original reading.[31]What
he does not promulgate, however, is that the ancient Greek manuscripts
utilized contracted forms of these words (uioV=UC; qeoV=QC).[32]Confusing
YC for QC
is just as conceivable as confusing the later for the former.[33]Since QC
had just appeared earlier in the verse, this scenario seems far more feasible.
The
reading “only-begotten Son,” on the other hand, has much in its favor from
an internal perspective.First of
all, “monogenhV
qeoV” is hapax legonmenon.That
is, it appears nowhere else in the New Testament.The
funny this is, the UBS4 rejects John 5:4 because it supposedly
contains “non-Johannine words or expressions,” but it accepts an expression
in the case at hand that fits the exact same definition.[34]
Metzger appears to be going against his own argument.According
to Alford, this expression introduces much harshness into the sentence
as well as a strange term into Scripture.[35]Alan
Wikgren, the UBS’ own, agrees.[36]
Secondly,
in the passage itself, qeon
has just occurred alone and immediately prior to the disputed expression.For
John to use this word twice in such close proximity implies the existence
of two Gods—God and the Only Begotten God.Abbot
argues that this introduces a harshness which we can hardly suppose of
any writer.[37]A
third internal observation that supports uioV
is the John’s use of “Father” in the very same verse.Such
a term almost necessarily implies that its correlative has just preceded
it.To connect “monogenhV
qeoV” with “eiV
ton kolpon tou patroV” is nonsensical.
Finally,
it relation to internal evidence, it is important to consider the nature
of the term monogenhV.This
adjective appears in the New Testament nine times.[38]In
all references outside the Johannine corpus it refers to children.In
John’s writings, however, it is used to describe the nature of Jesus Christ
and his relationship to God the Father.Buchsel,
in his definitive treatise on the meaning of this word writes, “mono-genhV means
‘of soul descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.This
gives us the sense of only-begotten . . . it means only-begotten.”[39]Richard
Longenecker, a translator for the NIV, disagrees.He
argues that monogenhV
should be understood more broadly as an adjective stressing quality, rather
than derivation or descent.[40]Thus,
some English versions stray from the traditional rendering of “only-begotten”
in favor of “one and only,” or “unique.”There
are several problems with this.First
of all, as noted, monogenhV
is used outside John’s corpus to refer exclusively to children.Thus,
the idea of derivation or birth is inherently implied.Although
it does not always carry a reference to descent or birth in extrabiblical
writings and may stress uniqueness, “of soul descent” seems to be the only
idea expressed in Scripture.[41]This
is especially the case for John, for in I John 5:18 he calls Jesus “he
that is begotten of God” (o
gennhqeiV ek tou qeou).The
word translated “ begotten” unquestionably comes from the verb “gennaw”
which means “to beget.”For John,
the Son was begotten from the Father as opposed to simply unique.[42]An
Old Testament reference also sheds light on the proper definition of monogenhV. In
Psalm 2:7, Jehovah prophetically speaks of Jesus Christ saying, “Thou art
my Son: this day have I begotten thee.”The
Hebrew word translated “begotten” comes from “dly”
which unquestionably means “to beget.”In
the LXX, “dly”
is translated “gennaw.”[43]Thus,
the Son’s relationship to the Father is not grounded in uniqueness but
the act of having been begotten.Longenecker
likes to point to extrabiblical pagan writings to substantiate his claim
on the meaning of “monogenhV.”[44]However,
an early Church Father paints an entirely different picture.Epiphanius
(A.D. 368) quotes John 1:18 three times with “qeoV.”Nevertheless,
in an exegetical remark following one of the citations, he explains that
Jesus is “the only-begotten God (monogenhV
qeoV); for the one Word is begotten
(gennhqeiV from gennaw)
from the Father, the Father was not begotten (egennhqhfrom gennaw);
therefore, he is the only-begotten Son (monogenhV
uioV).”[45]For
him, the idea of descent is necessarily implied in “monogenhV.”If
the adjective is used of objects, uniqueness might be considered.However,
when used of persons, or more importantly the Son of God, the concept of
“begotten” is unavoidable.Thus,
Buchsel can argue with certainty that in John, “monogenhV denotes
more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus.”[46]
Another
observation that must be factored into the debate over the proper translation
of monogenhV is
the Latin tradition.The Latin translation
of this word is “unigenitus” which undoubtedly involves descent.[47]This
word appears in the Old Itala, Vulgate, and the writings of numerous Latin
Fathers.Some of the patristic citations
go back to the third century and involve men who were well-acquainted with
the Greek language.[48]
Because monogenhV
undeniably suggests descent and is used as such in the Holy Scriptures, qeoV
becomes internally more difficult in John 1:18.If
this adjective were connected with “God,” especially without the definite
article as in a,
B, C, L, and P66, it could mean nothing short of “a begotten
god.”This would correspond to the
weakening of monotheism in Gnosticism.[49]Jesus
in his deity was not begotten from the Father.John
1:2-3 denies this.However, in his
human nature, that of a Son, Jesus was begotten of God.The
reading of the “oldest and best manuscripts” promotes Gnostic heresy while
the traditional reading adequately describes the relationship between the
humanity of Jesus Christ and God Almighty, his Father.
John
1:18, as retained in the Authorized Version, unquestionably conforms to
Apostle’s description of Jesus’ relationship to God the Father elsewhere
in his writings.Moreover, it falls
right in line with the prophecy made in Psalm 2:7.As
relates to his humanity, Jesus Christ was begotten.[50]However,
if one reads John 1:18 with qeoV,
he is faced with age old heresies that erroneously describe the nature
of the Saviour’s deity.The Watchtower
Bible Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses rightly translates “monogenhV
qeoV” as “only-begotten god;” and
as a result, this is one of the verses they appeal to when teaching that
Jesus was a created being. Many
years ago, John 1:18 was employed in the Arian controversy.Arius
read qeoV,
proclaiming that “there was a time when he [Christ] was not.”On
the other hand, his opponents read uioV.[51]Arius
was condemned a heretic at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.These
facts serve to highlight the theological implications of the textual variant
in question.
How
then did “monogenhV
qeoV” find its way into in John’s
Gospel if it was not the original reading?As
previously mentioned, a scribe could have confused the contracted forms
of God (QC)
and Son (UC).After
all, God (QC)
had just been used in the opening clause of the verse.On
the other hand, as Metzger argues, it is possible that a scribe cold have
changed qeoV
to uioV
in order to make 1:18 conform to 3:16,18; I John 4:9.[52]In
all rationality, however, this is highly improbable.If
early scribes would have seen “monogenhV
qeoV” in their copies, it is doubtful
that they would have altered it.Rather,
it is more conceivable that they would have reverenced it as a mystery
of some sort, having not appeared anywhere else in Scripture.Although
the expression is foreign to the Bible, it was a favorite with Christian
writers in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.Many
such as Gregory of Nyssa used this phrase numerous times as a title for
Christ without any reference whatsoever to John 1:18.As
Abbot argues, “So far from stumbling at it, transcribers may have been
led by their familiarity with the expression, to introduce it unconsciously
into the text.”[53]All
of this, of course, comprises an effort to explain the variation on grounds
of careless transcription.While
plausible, the theological nature of the passage points to, as Burgon would
contend, intentional corruption.[54]
The
very first time John 1:18 is cited by any of the ancients (Irenaeus), it
is accompanied by a statement that the Valentinians (Gnostics) appeal to
the words “only-begotten GOD who is in the bosom of the Father.”[55]Other
witnesses who cite the passage with qeoV
are also doctrinally unsound.These
include Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Arius, and Theodotus.Origen
could not make up his mind about the nature of Christ just like he could
not make up his mind about John 1:18.He
uses both readings while claiming that Christ was “the firstborn of all
creation, a thing created” and that “there is no time when he did not exist.”With
regard to Theodotus, he was vehemently opposed by Hippolytus, for his adoptionist
Christology.[56]The
Gnostics, in particular, taught that Christ was a messenger sent from the
transcendent spiritual world.He
was not truly human, for human is material, and according to Gnosticism,
matter was evil.Thus, Jesus Christ
was not a “begotten Son,” but a “god,” begotten from the Spirit of Gnosis
(God).The Adoptionists, Ebionites,
and Arians were later influenced by these Gnostic teachings.While
the Arians denied Christ’s co-eternality with the Father, the Adoptionists
and Ebionites argued that the Son’s deity was begotten.In
other words, Jesus was not God.He
was a great person who, because of the quality of his life, was “adopted”
by God as His Son.The power of God
simply came upon Jesus because he was a good example.He
was not a begotten Son, but an adopted son whose deity was begotten.Such
heresies had a profound influence on the theology of ancient Alexandria.After
all, that is where the allegorical interpretation of Scripture and study
of Hellenistic philosophies were most ardently encouraged.[57]Gnosticism
originated in Alexandria; Arianism originated in Alexandria; P66, P75, a,
and B originated in Alexandria.It
was there that the influence of numerous heresies that attacked the deity
of Christ brought about the intentional corruption of John 1:18.Jesus
as an “only-begotten God” derives from Gnosticism and it most likely came
into the Egyptian texts by way of this heresy’s influence on Alexandrian
theology.[58]
The
above hypothesis does not hold water with men such as D.A. Carson and John
Ankerberg who say that the AV’s rendering of John 1:18 denies the deity
of Christ over and against the NIV and NAS.[59]It
is interesting, however, to see how critics such as these defend “monogenhV
qeoV” by making statements, whether
consciously or unconsciously, that are strikingly similar to the affirmations
of old heresies.For example, Carson
argues that Jesus is the Son “because He always does what is pleasing in
the Father’s sight.”[60]In
addition, Longenecker of the NIV translation committee describes
Jesus as “the Jew standing on behalf of all his fellow Jews and
the Man representing all men, who offered in fullest measure that
loving obedience that is rightfully due God the Father—and therefore, he
has the greatest right to the title “Son of God.”[61]He
goes on to say that “Jesus was God’s Son par excellence, offering
to the Father the response of loving obedience that is God’s due.”[62]This
was the view held by early Adoptionists, Dynamic Monarchianists, and Ebionites!They
believed that Jesus was a man specially chosen by God, not a begotten Son.Longenecker’s
statements in particular, strike New Age tones.The
New Age Movement has bought into ancient heresy by viewing Jesus merely
as a good example, one who possessed the “Christ-consciousness.”In
Russell Chandler’s Understanding the New Age, a New Age advocate
is quoted as saying “Jesus is the unique Son of God . . . but there
have been lots of others like him . . . he was a guide and I can be just
like him.”[63]Longenecker
attacks the AV for translating “monogenhV”
literally because it leaves open the possibility of an etymological emphasis
on genes (the ides of generation).[64]This
is exactly what Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky taught a hundred years ago.She
once wrote of Jesus, “Neither was he physically begotten.”[65]
The
aforementioned comparisons are not drawn to accuse men such as Carson and
Longenecker of intentionally leading people into apostasy with New Age
doctrine; but their claims against the AV do ring frighteningly close to
ancient heresies revived in the New Age Movement. Such
measures are a little too extreme to be defined as scholarly attempts at
justifying the departure from the traditional Greek text of the New Testament.
uioV--a2,
A, C3, W, D,
Q, Y, X,
E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V
The
fact that three of the four most ancient uncials (aBC)
contain “only-begotten God” is indeed remarkable.However,
some circumstances do lessen their apparent weight.The
testimony of a
cannot be properly determined unless the circumstances surrounding its
various correcting hands can be known.Since
they are not known, the corrector’s hand carries as much weight as the
supposed original hand.It is not
inconceivable that the corrector properly corrected mistakes made by the
original writer.This is at least
as probable as any other explanation.Besides,
the laziness of the original hand of a
when he transcribed John 1:18 is apparent;Sinaiticus
omits the words “o
wn” before
“eiV
ton kolpon”
against the witness of every other known mss.[68]Another
worthy circumstance involves the omission of the definite article in each
of the aforementioned uncials (aBC).They
all agree in reading “monogenhV
qeoV” instead
of “o
monogenhV uioV.”As
Abbot remarks, “It seems hardly possible that this omission of the article
can be correct.”[69]If
this is an error as it seems, suspicion can be thrown on the reading and
the weight of the old uncials lessens.
On
the other side of the coin,“only-begotten
Son” appears in the majority of uncial mss.This
grouping yields a wide scope of geographical distribution.The
Western and Byzantine text-types are practically unanimous in their support
of this reading.
uioV--all
cursive mss except one, several hundred in number
The
testimony of the cursives is practically unanimous with regard to the traditional
reading.The one exception (33)differs
from a,
B, C in that it includes the definite article.The
cursives also entail wide geographical distribution.
century);
and a revision of the Georgian (10th century)
uioV--Old
Latin (2nd century); Vulgate (4th century); Curetonian
Syriac (ca. 4th century); Harclean
Syriac
in the text (ca. 616); Palestinian Syriac (6th century); an
earlier revision of the Georgian (9th century); Armenian (uncertain
date); Ethiopic (6th century); Slavonic (9th century)
It
is the evidence of the ancient versions that swings the pendulum decisively
in favor of“only-begotten Son” with
regard to manuscript evidence.Abbot
argues that the witness of the versions is of great importance in cases
like the present, where, from similarity of the questionable words in Greek
(UC
vs. QC),
a scribe might easily mistake the one for the other.[70]Once
again, “uioV”
enjoys wide chronological and geographical support.
In
this appendix, the patristic evidence will be presented in the following
manner.First, those Fathers who
seem to favor “qeoV”
by expressly quoting John 1:18 will be cited followed by those that appear
to allude to the passage with the same reading.Next,
the Greek Fathers that favor “uioV”
will be cited, followed by a representative list of Latin Fathers.[75]Finally,
three fathers who bear witness to both variants will be considered. Those
witnesses listed with an asterix are either not listed or misrepresented
by the UBS4 in the critical apparatus.
1.Clement
of Alexandria (194)—He quotes the passage once, but in another place,
he alludes to the text by saying “o
monogenhV uioV qeoV.”The
later fact considerably weakens the testimony to “qeoV.”Moreover,
according to Abbot, Clement seems to be “one of the most remarkable among
the Fathers for the looseness of his quotations from scripture.”[76]The
UBS text cites Clement as favoring “qeoV”
in two out of three places.
2.Excerpta
Theodoti—This a document of uncertain authorship.Many
have claimed that it was written byClement
of Alexandria.In it, Theodotus is
cited several times, but more frequently the followers of Valentinus (Gnostics)
are enumerated.The quotation of
John 1:18 appears in a context in which it is explained how the Gnostics
understood and explained the first chapter of John.The
Gnostics, of course, would consider Jesus to be a “begotten god,” emanating
from “the Good.”They would have
rejected the idea of Jesus being a “begotten son” because to them, the
material/physical world was inherently evil.Perhaps
it was the Gnostics who introduced the variant into the text in the first
place.The UBS apparently refers
to this document with “Clementfrom Theodotus.”
3.Epiphanius
(368)—He quotes the passage three times.In
the first instance, an exegetical remark that follows contains the phrase
“monogenhV
uioV.”[77]This
fact, of course, weakens Epiphanius’ testimony which the UBS4
lists in favor of its reading.However,
Epiphanius does on another occasion speak of John calling Christ “only-begotten
God.”This, notwithstanding, proves
nothing, for John calls Jesus Christ God in 1:1 and only-begotten in 1:18.He
could have been combining the teachings of two different verses in his
writings.
4.Didymus
of Alexandria (370)—He expressly quotes John 1:18 twice with “qeoV.”On
another occasion, he writes, “o
uioV keklhtai monogenhV qeoV logoV kai eiV kurioV IhsouV CristoV.”However,
itstands in doubt as to whether
a comma should be place after monogehnV,
after mongenhV
qeoV, or
after neither.
Conclusion—According
to Abbot, these four writers comprise all who have expressly quoted John
1:18 with the reading “mongehnV
qeoV”
alone.These are all who can be cited
with some measure of confidence for supporting such a reading.[78]This
author, however, would add that the testimonies of Clement and Excerpta
Theodoti are considerably weak.
*1. II
Synod of Ancyra(358)—This
was a semi-Arian synod which may have read “qeoV”in
John 1:18, but the evidence is far from decisive.Abbot
writes:
After quoting Prov. viii.
22, etc., Col. i.15, etc., and the first verses of the Proem
to the Gospel of John, without any allusion, however, to John 1.18, the
Fathers of this Synod state their conclusion as follows—“So that we have
testimony ‘from the mouth of two or three witnesses’ in proof that the
substance of the Son is like that of the Father; for one [Solomon] calls
the wisdom of the [all-] Wise his Son; another [John] calls the Logos of
God only-begotten God; another [Paul] calls the Son of God his Image.We
have no reason to suppose, a priori, that the reference to John
is verbally accurate any more than that to Proverbs, where we find neither
the word uioV, nor the expression h
sofia tou sofou.[79]
*2.Gregory
of Nyssa(370)—According to
Abbot, Gregory nowhere expressly quotes the passage.[80]This
seems rather odd seeing as the deity of Christ was so prominent a theme
in this “Great Cappodocian’s” writings.Had
John 1.18 read”qeoV,”
such an explicit citation would have been too remarkable to have been overlooked.Gregory
of Nazanzius, another one of the Great Cappodocians who was in close cohorts
with Gregory of Nyssa, expressly quotes John 1:18 with uioV.It
is highly doubtful that these two, who worked together to bring about the
rejection of Arianism in the early church, would have had different readings
in their copies of Scriptures.The
supposed allusion is seen when Gregory of Nyssa uses the phrase “o
wn en toiV kolpoiV tou patroV”
eight times in connection with the expression “o
monogenhV qeoV,”
twice in connection with the phrase “o
monogenhV uioV,”
and once with the phrase “o
en uyistoiV qeoV.”Recognizing
as Abbot does, that the expression “o
monogenhV qeoV”
is a favorite designation of Christ in the writings of this Father as well
as in other Fathers who unquestionably read “only-begotten son” in John
1:18, it is hardly fair to assume Gregory of Nyssa as a credible witness
to “qeoV”as
the UBS4 does.[81]
*3.Fulgentius(507)—This
Latin Father alludes to John 1:18 six times.According
to Abbot, these instances taken together show clearly how little can be
inferred concerning the original reading of a passage from allusion.Furthermore,
they may serve to guard against hasty conclusions made about other Fathers
such as Gregory of Nyssa.[82]In
alluding to the passage, Fulgentius uses the phrases “unigenitus Deus,”
“unigenitus Filius,” and “unigenitus” alone.Nowhere,
however, is the phrase “unigenitus Deus” ever used by Fulgentius, or any
other Latin Father for that matter, when expressly quoting John 1:18.This
is what should be expected considering the fact that both the Old Latin
and Vulgate read “unigenitus Filius.”If
Fulgentius had found “Deus” in his copies of Scripture, he most certainly
would have quoted it given the theological nature of his writings.
Conclusion—Of
the three examples listed, all are doubtful as to whether qeoV
was read in their copies of John 1:18.Only
Gregory of Nyssa is cited in the UBS as favoring this reading.As
noted, however, such judgment is hasty and seems to ignore the circumstances
of Gregory’s writings.
*1. Irenaeus
(178)—He quotes the passage once with “Filius,” once with “Filius Dei,”
and once with “Deus.”With regard
to the later, Irenaeus was enumerating the beliefs of the Valentinian Gnostics.Thus,
Burgon could write, “Accordingly, the very first time John 1:18 is quoted
by any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the statement that the Valentinians
appeal to the words ‘only-begotten GOD who is in the bosom of the Father’—seeking
to prove that the only begotten is ‘the Beginning,’ and is ‘GOD.’”[83]
2.Hippolytus(220)—He
clearly quotes this passage with “uioV”:
“Legei
gar IwannhV . . .”According
to Buchsel, this witness is very important, for it “proves that it [monogenhV
uioV]
does not come from the Lat. transl.”[84]
*3.III
Antioch(269)—John 1:18 is quoted
with “uioV”in
the synod’s epistle to Paul of Samasota.It
is interesting to note that Paul of Samasota was the Bishop of Antioch
and the most outspoken of the heretical “Dynamic Monarchianists.”He
would have considered Jesus to be a “begotten god.”Thus,
the synod at Antioch quotes John 1:18, affirming that Jesus was not begotten
with regard to his deity but only concerning his humanity.
*4.Archelaus(300)
5.Alexander(313)—Alexander
was the Bishop of Alexandria and an early opponent of Arius.He
argued against Arius that Christ was not a created being nor did he have
a beginning.John 1:18 with “monogenhV
qeoV” seems
to teach this Arian heresy.Alexander,
however, did not have this reading in his copies of John’s Gospel.
*6.Eusebius
of Caesarea (315)—The UBS4’s critical apparatus states that
Eusebius favored “qeoV”three
times and “uioV”
four times. Once again, misrepresentation of evidence raises its ugly head.Abbot,
rejects the three instances supposedly supporting “qeoV.”The
first, he argues, should be omitted because it is merely an expression
of “monogenhV
qeoV”
without any reference to John 1:18.The
second should not be taken without consideration of the context which the
UBS apparently has neglected.[85]Evidently,
“h
monogenhV qeoV”
is a marginal gloss that has crept into the text.The
third instance involves the phrase, “qeon
de kai monogenh.”This
is irrelevant to the case at hand.Eusebius
simply says that Christ is represented by John as “God and only-begotten”
as opposed to “only-begotten God.”[86]Abbot’s
arguments are further strengthened by the fact that Eusebius expressly
quotes John 1:18 five times with “uioV.”
7. Eustathius(320)
8.Athanasius(326)—He
quotes the passage four times with “uioV.”Moreover,
three allusions clearly show that he had this reading in front of him.[87]
*9.Pseudo-Athanasius
(4th century)—This document was written against the Sabellianists
who exhibited a faulty Christology.
*10.Cyril
of Jerusalem (350)—Cyril reads “monogenhV”
without “qeoV”
or “uioV”
while alluding to the passage.If
“qeoV”was
in his copy of John’s Gospel, he surely would not have left such an important
word out.Thus, he can be cited as
favoring “uioV,”
for the nature of “monogenhV”implies
sonship.
*11.Emperor
Julian(362)—He quotes the passage
twice with “uioV.”
*12.Titus
of Bostra(362)—He quotes the
passage once with “uioV”
and on another occasion, alludes to it with the phrase “monogenhV
uioV qeoV.”
13.Gregory
of Nazanzius(370)—He provides
a word for word quotation of the last half of John 1:18 which matches the
Textus Receptus.
*14.Pseudo
Basilius(4th century)
*15.Rufinius
(390)
16.Chrysostom(398)—He
quotes the passage not less than eight times.Abbot
writes, “In several of these instances, he so comments on the worduioV
as to show beyond question that he had this reading.”
*17.
Theodore of Mopsuetia (407)—This Father was a champion of the Antiochene
method of biblical interpretation (literal) over against the allegorization
of the Alexandrian school.Moreover,
he argued for the humanity of Jesus Christ and ardently defended the Nicene
faith.
*18.Nonnus
of Egypt(410)—He only uses
“monogenhV.”
As noted, however, this term used alone implies sonship.
19.Theodoret(423)—He
quotes the passage four times.
20.Proclus
(434)—He was Patriarch of Constantinople.
*21.Pseudo-Cyril
(5th century)
*22.Andreas(ca.
635)
*23.Pseudo-Caesarea(7th
century)
24.John
of Damascus (730)—He quotes the passage three times.
*25.
Theodore Studites(813)—He
quotes the passage twice.
*26.Andreas
the Presbyter (9th/10th century)
*27.The
Catena on John 1:18
*28.Theophylact(1070)
*29.Euthymius
Zigabenus(1110)—He quotes the
passage three times.
*30.Elias
Cretensis(787)
*31.Zacharias
Chrysopolitanus(1157)
*32.Nicetas
Choniates(1200)—He quotes the
passage four times.
Conclusion—It
is clear from the above list that the Greek Fathers generally favored the
reading “only-begotten Son.”The
UBS4 has failed to list many of these witnesses, and with regard
to Eusebius of Caesarea, they have misrepresented the evidence, leading
the reader to believe that he quoted John 1:18 with “only-begotten God”
three times.This, however, is simply
not so.The list provided is representative
and by no means complete. Abbot added the last three witnesses, although
late, for the sake of emphasis and completeness.[88]
Note:No
quotation that reads “unigenitus Deus” has ever been produced from
a single Latin Father.[89]Thus,
only a select list of the more prominent Latin Fathers follows.
1.Tertullian(200)
*2.Hilary(354)—He
quotes John 1:18 at least seven times.It
is interesting to note that the UBS4 lists Hilary as favoring
“uioV”
five out of seven times.However,
it is not promulgated in the critical apparatus what Hilary read on the
other two occasions.
*3.Phoebadius(359)
4.Victorinus(360)—He
quotes the passage six times.
5.Ambrose(374)—He
quotes the passage at least seven times.[90]The
UBS4 lists him as favoring “o
monogenhV uioV”
ten times and “monogenhV
uioV qeou”
once.The later is obviously an expression
used for Christ without any clear reference to John 1:18.
6.Jerome(378)
7.Faustinus
(384)
8.Augustine
(396)—He quotes the passage three times.
*9.Adimantus
the Manichaean(396)
*10.Maximus(428)—He
quotes the passage twice.
*11.Idacius
Clarus(385)—He quotes John
1:18 three times.
*12.Vigilis
of Tapsa(484)—The UBS4
lists this Father as reading “o
monogenhV”
one of two times.However, it is
not promulgated what he recorded on the other occasion.As
noted, “o
monogenhV”
implies sonship.
*13.Junilius(550)
*14.Aleuin(780)
Conclusion:The
testimony of the Latin Fathers unanimously attests to “only-begotten Son”
in John 1:18.This fact, coupled
with the unanimous testimony of the Old Latin and Vulgate indicates that
this reading was widespread in the Western Church.Some
of the aforementioned Fathers such as Tertullian, Hilary, Victorinus, Ambrose,
and Jerome were well-acquainted with Greek and occasionally consulted the
original language of the New Testament in their writings.Therefore,
their testimony goes beyond the Latin tradition.
*1.Origen(230)—He
has the reading “qeoV”once,
“uioV”once,
“uioV
tou qeou”
once, and “unigenitus Dei Filius” in a work preserved only in the Latin
version of Rufinius.[91]The
UBS’ citation of Origen is somewhat queer.He
is listed as favoring “qeoV”
four times in the Greek and “uioV”
one out of two times in the Latin.However,
the other occasion in the Latin is not mentioned.This
evidence is different than that presented by Abbot. Due to the preponderance
of misrepresentation in the UBS’ critical apparatus, it seems more prudent
to go with Abbot on this one.With
regard to Origen himself, he clearly uses both readings.This
“contradiction,” however, is not surprising seeing as his own Christology
was contradictory in nature.He argued
that Christ was “the firstborn of all creation, a thing created” and that
“there is no time when he did not exist.”For
Christ to be eternal and a creature is nonsensical.Apparently,
Origen could not make up his mind with regard to John 1:18 either.
*2.Basil
of Caesarea(370)—Basil has
“qeoV”
once.In another passage, he mentions
True Son, Only-Begotten God, Power of God, and Logos as names given to
Christ in Scripture.But, he quotes
the text in question with the reading “uioV”.The
UBS4 lists Basil as favoring “o
monogenhV qeoV”
one out of two times.Once again,
however, it is not promulgated concerning the other citation.
*3.Cyril
of Alexandria(412)—Cyril has
“qeoV”
four times, and “uioV”
three times.Cyril wrote a commentary
on the passage.In the text of John
presented in the commentary “uioV”
appears, but in Cyril’s exegetical comments, he quotes the passage with
“qeoV”.With
regard to the later, there is a question of variant readings.Thus,
his testimony to “qeoV”
is considerably weakened.[92]The
UBS4 cites Cyril as favoring “qeoV”three
times and “uioV”once.
Conclusion:The
testimony of these three Fathers is dubious at best.It
seems quite hasty on the part of the UBS4 to list them as witnesses
clearly hostile to the traditional text.
FOURwitnesses
quote John 1:18, favoring “qeoV.”
THREE
witnesses seem to allude to John 1:18 with the reading “qeoV.”The
evidence, however, is doubtful in all three cases.
THIRTY-TWO
Greek witnesses are listed that clearly favor “uioV.”Many
of these expressly quote the passage multiple times.
FOURTEEN
Latin witnesses are cited that quote John 1:18 with “Filius.”Also,
no occurrence of “unigenitus Deus” has ever be found in any writings of
the Latin Fathers.
THREE
witnesses exhibit both readings in their writings.
James
White, author of The King James Only Controversy, and D.A. Carson,
author of The King James Version Debate—A Plea For Realism, are
two of the most notable “scholars” who have written against the integrity
of the Authorized Version.Unfortunately,
a casual reading of each of these works yields much deception, exaggeration,
and misrepresentation of evidence.An
example of this occurs with regard to John 1:18.
1.On
page 64 of his work, Carson presents a chart that is supposed to show which
English versions promulgate the deity of Christ in various passage.His
results are supposed to lead the reader to believe that the NIV,
“a translation done by evangelicals but based on an eclectic text,”[93]
has the highest number of such references.He
accuses the KJV of lacking a proper Christology in John 1:18 while
arguing that the NIV teaches the deity of Christ in this verse.Actually,
the rendering of the NIV teaches the existence of two different
“gods”—the God the Father, and God the One and Only who is at the Father’s
side.This is heresy, not evangelical
orthodoxy!Buchsel writes, “An only-begotten
God corresponds to the weakening of monotheism in Gnosticism.”[94]The
AV, in this passage, teaches that Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son (begotten in his humanity, not his divinity) declares God.If
this passage downplays Christ’s deity as Carson suggests, then I suppose
John 3:16 does as well, for it also refers to Jesus as the “only-begotten
Son.”What Carson does not tell
his readers on this page is that the apparent difference between the two
readings is based on textual variation, not translation.This
paper has demonstrated why the reading in the KJV is superior to
that of the NIV.With regard
to two other passages that appear on the chart (Titus 2:13, II Peter 1:1),
both the NIV and the KJV basically say the same thing.How
does the KJV not provide a witness to the deity of Christ in these
passages?
2.On
page 92 of his work, Carson attacks the AV’s rendering of monogenhV as
“only-begotten” over and against the NIV’s “One and Only,” claiming
that “these facts have been documented repeatedly.”[95]Unfortunately,
Carson presents no documented facts.Is
the reader supposed to believe this nonsense just because he says so?Hardly!He
also says that the NIV is more accurate than the KJV in its
translation of “monogenhV.”Buchsel,
in his definitive treatise in theTheological
Dictionary of the New Testament would disagree.[96]Besides,
the term’s connection with offspring throughout the New Testament implies
the action of having been begotten.
3.Carson,
while criticizing the AV’s translation of “monogenhV”
as “only-begotten,” says that Jesus is God’s Son “because he always does
what is pleasing in the Father’s sight.”[97]Such
a statement hints of Adoptionist heresy!
1.On
page 258, Whites says that the NIV’s rendering of John 1:18 is “even
more interpretive.”[98]How
so?He provides no answer, its just
personal opinion.
2.White
quotes Jay P. Green who argues that the Sinaitic mss robs Christ of his
glory in its rendering of John 1:18 (only-begotten God).White,
who does not cite the quotation properly (its page 14, not page 12), says
that “Mr. Green’s reaction is based upon his understanding of theology,
not upon the external evidence of the text . . .we must now allow the misuse
of biblical texts to determine the readings we choose for the text of Scripture.”[99]To
be sure, Green is basing his argument on 99% of the external evidence.This
includes almost unanimous testimony from the Early Church Fathers.[100]Moreover,
the first time John 1:18 is cited in church history (Irenaeus), it is done
so in connection with Valentinus and his Gnostic followers.This
is not theological bias, but historical fact.Even
today, modern forms of Gnosticism (i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses) cite the passage
as it reads in the NIV and NAS.Its
interesting that White fails to finish Green’s statement which reads, “See
Burgon’s full discussion in this volume.”[101]White
makes no attempt to do battle with Burgon’s arguments which no textual
critic has been able to convincingly answer to this day.
3.On
page 259, White provides a chart that lists the external evidence of the
UBS’ critical apparatus.This seems
to be what he bases his entire argument upon.However,
it has been shown that the UBS misrepresents the evidence with regard to
Origen, Cyril, a2,
Eusebius, and Gregory of Nyssa.With
regard to P66 and P75, the UBS4 rejects
them in John 1:19 in favor of Vaticanus.
4.White
says that P66 and P75 are “the two oldest manuscripts.”[102]Apparently,
he did not read his UBS text very well.According
to the editors, P52 is the oldest papyrus fragment (ca. 125).Moreover,
White fails to mention that several Church Fathers (e.g. Irenaeus, Tertullian,
etc.) quote John 1:18 with “only-begotten Son” long before the aforementioned
papyrus mss were copied.
5.White
argues that “uioV”
arose from “qeoV”
in an attempt to harmonize John 1:18 with 3:16, 18.An
argument from the opposite end of the spectrum could also be true.The
phrase “only-begotten God” is found nowhere else in Scripture.It
seems odd that John would use it in 1:18 when “o
monogenhV uioV”
appears in John 1:14, 3:16, 3:18, and I John 4:19.Even
Alan Wikgren of the UBS committee admits this.He
writes, “It is doubtful that the author would have written monogenhV
qeoV.”[103]
6.White
says, “it is most logical to conclude that monogonhV
qeoV is
the original reading that gave rise to all the other variants, including
the reading that is found in the majority of Greek texts.”[104]On
the previous page, he writes, “It is difficult to see how the reading qeoV
could arise from uioV.The
terms are simply to far removed from one another in form to account for
scribal error based upon morphology.”[105]White
misleads the reader by failing to promulgate the fact that “Son” was abbreviated UC
in ancient Greek manuscripts while QC
stood for “God.”These two abbreviations
are close enough in form to suggest the possibility of transcriptional
error.Thus, Wikgren is able to suggest
that monogenhV
qeoV “may
be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition.”[106]Where
such a situation occurs, the value of the ancient versions is great.These,
of course, overwhelmingly support the reading “only-begotten Son.”
7.White
concludes his excursus on John 1:18 by asserting, “This decision is not
arrived at due to gnostic or heretical beliefs or leanings, but simply
due to the external evidence itself.”[107]While
White may not be a Gnostic, his decision is based upon a biased and incomplete
presentation of the external evidence.He
accepts the reading a priori because
it appears in the “oldest and best manuscripts” (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).
Conclusion:Both
White and Carson misrepresent the evidence with regard to this passage.Hasty
pronouncements are made without any supporting evidence or examples.Therefore,
doubt arises with regard to their books.One
should such argumentation that pits itself against the Authorized Version.Not
only do these two authors wrongfully slander those that hold to the preservation
of the AV, but they distort the evidence to prove their biased and prejudiced
presuppositions.
Abbot, Ezra.“On
the Readings of John i.18.”In Bibliotheca
Sacra18:840-872(1862).
Alford, Henry.New
Testament for English Readers.Vol.
I. Part II.Boston, MA: Lee and Shepard,
1880.
Ankerberg, John.The
Facts on the King James Only Debate.Eugene,
OR: Harvest House Publishers,
1996.
Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. 5. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.
The Bible.
Blavatsky, H.P. The
Secret Doctrine.Vol. 2.London:
The Theosophical Publishing House, 1893.
Burgon, John W.“The
Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text.”In
Unholy Hands on the
Bible.Ed.
by Jay P. Green.Lafayette, IN: Sovereign
Grace Trust Fund, 1990.B: 1-103.
.
“The Revision Revised.”In Unholy
Hands on the Bible.Ed. by Jay
P. Green. Lafayette, IN:
Sovereign
Grace Trust Fund,1990.D:
1-51.
.“The
Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.”In
Unholy Hands on the Bible.Ed.
by Jay P.
Green.Lafayette,
IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.1-146.
Carson, D.A.The
King James Version Debate—A Plea For Realism.Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House,1979.
Chandler, Russell.
Understanding the New Age.Dallas,
TX: Word Publishing, 1988.
The Greek New Testament(4th
Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes
Karavidopoulos,
Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.
Herman Hoskier, “Codex
Vaticanus and its Allies”Which
Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller.Grand
Rapids,
MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1975.
The Holy Bible,
New International Version.Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.
Lange, J.P.Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures—The Gospel According to John.Ed.
Philip Schaff.
New
York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.1872.
Metzger, Bruce.A
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition).Germany:
United
Bible Societies, 1993.
.Manuscripts
of the Greek Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
New American Standard
Version.La
Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1977.
New World Translation
of the Holy Scriptures.New
York:Watch Tower Bible and Tract
Society of
New
York, Inc.,n.d.
The NIV: The Making
of a Contemporary Translation.Ed.
by Kenneth Barker.Grand Rapids,
MI:
Zondervan,1986.
Patristic Greek
Lexicon.Ed.
by G.W.H. Lampe.Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1961.
Riplinger, G.A.New
Age Bible Versions.Ararat,
VA:AV Publications,1993.
Robertson, A.T.Word
Pictures in the Greek New Testament.Vol.
5.Grand Rapids, MI:Baker
Book
House,1932.
Scrivener, F. H. A.A
Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th ed. London:
G.
Bell,
1984 [rep].
Thesaurus Graecae
Linguae.Vol.VI.Ed.
by Henrico Stephano.Secundum Conspectum
Ab
Academia
Regia Inscriptionum Et Humaniorum Litterrarum,1829.
Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament.Vol.
IV.Ed. by Gerhard Kittel.Grand
Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans,
1967.
Vetus Testamentum
Graece—Iuxta LXX Interpretes.
Vol. 2. Ed. by Constantinus Tischendorf.
Lipsiae:
F.A. Brockhaus, 1875.
White, James.The
King James Only Controversy.Minneapolis,
MN: Bethany House Publishers,
1995.
Wilkinson, Benjamin.
“Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.” In Which Bible? Ed. by David
Otis Fuller.
Grand
Rapids, MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1974.
i. 18,”in Bibliotheca Sacra(18:810-872),1861.The patristic writings cited therein are thoroughly documented.Such evidence will be compared with the UBS’ presentation of evidence in their fourth edition of The Greek New Testament in order to achieve a more comprehensive perspective.Moreover, with regard to the later, misrepresentation of evidence will become apparent.
Hands on the Bible, Ed. by Jay P. Green
(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990),B:96.
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967),740.