New Series - Weekly Variants

Starting this week I will begin posting what I hope will be a weekly discussion of a variant found in Codex Alexandrinus along with evidence believed to stand for and against. Today will be the first such post, this one discussing the major variant at John 1:18 between υἱός and θεός.

The variant - John 1:18

There are two major versions of this verse:

1. ¹⁸ θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

This version using θεὸς is found in the majority of the Greek New Testament editions following the 'Alexandrian' tradition, the 'Critical texts', this example is from the (in)famous Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (WH GNT). English translations that are translated from 'Critical' GNTs such as WH or the NA/UBS generally follow this variant.

For example the Updated American Standard Version (UASV), a modern revision based on the American Standard Version (ASV) reads:

¹⁸ No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him fully known. 

Which is a departure from the ASV which had 'Son' in this verse and is mirrored in some other modern English translations such as the NASB 95 ('the only begotten God') and LSB ('the only begotten God') but not in others based on the ASV such as the World English Bible (WEB) ('the only born Son') and Refreshed ASV ('the only begotten Son').

¹⁸ Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

The second follows the Byzantine majority position including the so-called 'Textus Receptus (TR) that forms the basis for translations such as the King James Version (KJV also known as the 'Authorised Version (AV)):

¹⁸ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

The Evidence For Each Position

There are more than a few variants that are difficult to determine which is the most accurate version. In some ways this one is one of those. Both variants appear early in the history of the New Testament's transmission.

The variant θεός first appears in Papyrus 66 (P66) which is commonly believed to have been written somewhere between 150 and 250 AD - this is about 60 to 150 years after John is traditionally believed to have been written (i.e. c.96 AD). It is also found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria who died around 215 AD.

Seems conclusive, right? The variant is clearly very early, dating from the second century AD, so it must be the right one!

Well... no, not so fast, because the other version, υἰός, is also found in relatively early manuscripts and quotes. For example, the late second century Christian scholar Clement of Alexandria (a contemporary to P66) quoted the verse three times in his writings and in two of the three he used 'υἰός' and in one he used 'θεός'. He also quoted an early Gnostic named Theodotus the Gnostic (2nd c. AD) twice and used each variant once in his quotes. Early manuscripts such as Alexandrinus (GA 02, c.400 AD) and Washingtonius (GA 032 - 4th/5th c) also have υἰός.

So, How Can We Know Which is Right?

Do not despair friend, this one is fairly easy to determine.

How? By the spread of exemplars and the traditions from which the witnesses from which each variant comes. Let us take a look, but first a 'short' introduction to textual criticism and the textual families to give some background.

Categorising Texts - A Brief Introduction

Johann Albrecht Bengel, an 18th century German scholar was the first to propose textual families with his 'African' and 'Asiatic' families in 1734. This was refined by Johann Jakob Wettstein who first proposed the now familiar 'Western', 'Alexandrian', and 'Byzantine' families between 1774 and 1807. In 1777 another German scholar Johann Jakob Griesbach produced a list of nine manuscripts that he believed to be 'Alexandrian.' In 1808 Johann Leonard Hug proposed the theory that the Alexandrian text was a refinement of what he called a 'wild' text, which he thought to be something like the Western text of Codex Bezae rather than the 'Free' text of Gregory's Category IV.

The first to propose a 'Critical' text was English scholar and theologian Richard Bently who in 1721 thought that a revised Greek text could be based on Codex Alexandrinus and began working with 02 and a number of other manuscripts categorised as either Byzantine or which remain uncategorised. This work was completed by Karl Lachmann in 1846 in the form of his 'Novum Testamentum Graecae ex recensione Caroli Lachmanni', a complete GNT with a very sparse set of footnotes that give no witnesses but do sometimes provide alternative readings in the form of 'x = y'.

During the course of the 19th century various scholars such as Lachmann, John Mill, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, Samuel Tregelles, Constantin von Tischendorf, and Eberhard Nestle who believed that the Alexandrian text was the 'urtext' or 'original text' of the Greek New Testament. These men produced various 'Critical' texts based on their ideas and building on the work of those who went before them.

The Alexandrian text (Category I) these men championed is a type found originally in Egypt and the majority of examples have been found or traced to this region. It appears during the 2nd century and is found in hundreds of early manuscripts, sometimes mixed with early Byzantine (Category II when mixed and V when the bulk of a book) and Western readings (Category IV). Though they became rare manuscripts of this family were still being copied into the 13th century (e.g. Revelation of GA 2053 and 2062).

Favouring the TR and Byzantine text were men such as Daniel Whitby (ardent opponent of Mill), Frederick Nolan, John William Burgon, and Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener.

This process has continued into the 20th and 21st centuries with refinements such as Gregory's Categories of texts splitting manuscripts in to Category I, II, III, IV, V and uncategorisable (i.e. examples that are too short or too damaged to place in a category).

A movement defending the Byzantine family also began in the 19th century with men such as Burgon and continued into the 20th century championed by scholars such as Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (the Majority Text - 1982), Maurice Robinson (The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform 1991, 2005, 2018 with William Pierpont), and Wilbur Pickering (The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 - 2014).

The Byzantine text forms the majority of manuscripts and appears in witnesses at around the same time as the Alexandrian text and often in some books of an early manuscript along with Western (Cat IV), Free (Cat III) and Alexandrian (Cat I) in other books. A good example of this is Codex Alexandrinus which leans heavily towards Byzantine in the Gospels and 'Free' in the remainder of the New Testament and generally Alexandrian in the Septuagint. From about the 8th century the bulk of Byzantine manuscripts are found in Greece and Anatolia, the heart of the Byzantine Empire. This is not surprising as during the 7th century Arab invaders began conquering and colonising the southern regions of the Byzantine empire and imposing their religion, Islam, on the inhabitants, which severely restricted the copying of Christian texts including the Bible after this time.

The Stabby Bit At the Tip

So, what is the point of what I've just written?

This is one of those examples where not only the lifespan of the variants, but also the spread of textual families gives us a reasonable answer as to what is the correct variant and in the case of John 1:18 we have a definitive answer.

Looking at the witnesses we see a clear pattern. In favour of 'θεός' we have seven known manuscripts - P66, P75, 01, 03, 04*, 019, and 33 supporting this reading. All except 019 are Alexandrian (Cat I), 019 is Category II. The newest is 33, a minuscule dated to about the 9th century. A handful of early translations (Syriac, Georgian, Sahidic, and Bohairic Coptic) as well as a few quotes from early Christian writers give additional support.

On the other hand, the earliest manuscript witness for 'υἰός' are Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Washingtonius which are all dated to the late 4th or early 5th century. This is followed by dozens of other manuscripts, translations (most Vulgate manuscripts, some Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, and Slavic), all Lectionaries containing John, not to mention many early Christian writers. As far as I can tell, there are no Category I or II manuscripts but Category III (Free - e.g. Family 13), Category IV (Western - all in the form of 'Italic' or Old Latin manuscripts), and V (all Byzantine) are strongly represented with the latter being the bulk of the examples.

Outliers

There are two other variants that can be dismissed with confidence since their witnesses consist entirely of a couple of translations and three quotes. These are:

Μονογενὴς υἱὸς θεοῦ - VI/VII Old Latin codex q along with one Latin quote from Irenaeus (of three), and one quote by Ambrose (of 11 apparent quotes)

ὁ μονογενής - a handful of Vulgate MSS and Ps-Vigilius (5th century 1 of 2)

Oddly, the 2020 edition of the NASB reads 'God the only Son' which would be a version of the first of these minor variants. The fact they have 'Son' in italics indicates they are trying to find a balance between the two primary variants and the resemblance to this particular variant is coincidental.

Conclusion

This variant seems to be clear cut. It is divided clearly between a small number of early Alexandrian manuscripts, a few translations, and a handful of quotes by early Christian writers for 'god' on one side and on the other side for 'son' is supported by many hundreds of manuscripts, numerous early translations, all lectionaries, and many, many quotes by early writers.

Obviously, we cannot be one hundred percent certain that 'υἰός' is the true and original reading because we do not have any first century examples of the Gospel of John, but given the preponderance of evidence pushes us in this direction, we can be highly confident it is indeed the correct reading.

We can safely dismiss the outliers, since they have very little support. But it would be rash to dismiss 'υἰός' since it has the strongest support across the board. The only reason I can see to do so is a rather blind adherence to the Alexandrian family that ignores the evidence because it doesn't fit a position.

The evidence for 'υἰός' dates from the second century in the form of quotes and continues until the advent of movable type printing ended copying of the Greek New Testament by hand. Support for 'θεός' is only found in a tiny number of manuscripts, translations, and quotes and is found no later than the 9th century in the case of GA 33 after which time it disappears from the manuscript record.

*Note* It's important to understand that neither variant has any effect on Christology or any doctrine. Jesus is called 'θεός' in verse 1 of John and 'υἰός' in many other verses, so this is a variant that changes literally nothing except a word in a verse. So have no fear if you read one or the other in your GNT or a translation, you are not being misled - both terms apply to the Only begotten Son of God and both are accurate. It is just a question of what did the text really say and not of theology or Christology.

Where did it come from?

It is possible that 'θεός' may have appeared because of John 1:1 and some scribes believing that 'υἰός' may be an error moving them to replace it with 'θεός', one of the words used to describe the Son of God in that verse. It is unlikely that it came through confusion in reading the Nomina Sacra since the earliest exemplars are written in Uncial or Majuscule (all capitals) script. In this style of writing 'υἰός' was written ΥϹ while 'θεός' was written as ΘϹ. It would be very hard to mistake the one for the other.

Final Thought

Wrapping this very long first post up it is almost entirely certain that 'υἰός' is the correct reading. Between the weight of witnesses of all types and the remarkably uniform split between the Alexandrian family and all other families, there is little reason to see 'θεός' as the correct reading.

At some point I will create a page with more information on textual families and textual criticism to serve as a permanent reference for future posts on this subject. Until then this should help understand at least some of the things I have mentioned in this post. Succeeding posts will not include the relevant section in this post and should be significantly shorter. I would also like to create a page with information on major manuscripts to help with understanding these.

Come back this weekend for the next Journal upload if you are using those and next Wednesday (Australian time) for the second 'Verse of the Week.'

Song of Songs Journal Now Live

 As I promised I've uploaded the journal for the Greek Septuagint version Song of Songs (also known as the Song of Solomon and Canticles in English and Ασμα Ασματων in Greek). It is available as a PDF on the Downloads page.

Song of Songs is a poetry book and usually formatted as such, particularly in modern editions such as Swete's. I could have kept it formatted as poetry but it would be more than twice as long as the prose formatting I used. Poetry formatting would not be a problem for those using devices such as tablets and PCs to do journaling, but for those who might want to print it out and work by hand, this is obviously going to consume a lot more paper. If there's any demand for the poetical formatting I might make those for the poetic books such as Song, the Psalms etc once I have all the canonical books completed and uploaded.

Next week I will post Lamentations (Θρῆνοι) and (God willing) the week after will be Ecclesiastes (Ἐκκλησιαστής - 12 chapters and 222 verses), then Esther (Ἐσθήρ - 16 chapters, 265 verses), and so on.

I also plan to start posting a 'Verse of the Week' each Wednesday (Australian time) that I will post on X and my blog. I will start with variants in Codex Alexandrinus as well as interesting features and observations and perhaps expand to include other interesting codices in the future. Alexandrinus is a very large manuscript and there's a lot to work with.

In the meantime, I pray it blesses you, helps you in your journey to learn Biblical Greek and to draw closer to God through his inspired Scriptures.

Ruth Journal is Live

 As I promised in my last update I have made the next journal, this being Ruth (Ῥούθ). The A4 portrait version is linked on the download pages. Enjoy.

I intend to complete all the canonical books first and so the next will be the Song of Songs (Ἆσμα Ἀσματον) next weekend followed by Lamentations (Θρῆνοι).

The Plan 

I really have no set plan for which will come next, it's mostly down to which remaining book has the least verses. Song of Songs has 8 chapters but 117 verses while Lamentations has 5 chapters and 154 verses.

The length of some books such as Psalms (151 psalms and 2,534 verses including the non-canonical Psalm 151) may make the books unwieldy for printing and thus I may split them. Traditionally Psalms is broken up to 5 separate books and I may split the journals in the same manner.

 The main determiner of this will be how big the files are. Computers, tablets/mobile phones, and the internet can handle pretty large files today, but even so a modern PC or tablet is still happier with a file that is no bigger than a couple of megabytes than one that is 10 or 20. So far all the LXX journals are about 400-500 KB and the GNT journals no more than 300 (Luke is the largest at 301 KB). So perhaps sticking to that is the best plan. But if even the biggest such as Genesis (50ch and 1,530 vss) weigh in at less than 2Mb then I'll probably leave them as a single book.

After I've finished the canonical books I'll start on the Apocryphal books and perhaps some early Christian writings such as 1 and 2 Clement, Barnabas, the Didache etc.

On Being a Terrible Blogger

 As I write this I have, as far as I know, zero followers. This isn't a complaint because I'm at fault for this. I don't update nearly enough, I don't post enough, and I don't promote my blog at all. Part of this is down to my apparent inability to come up with things to blog about and partly down to work and college where I'm studying a diploma in graphic design.

I'm not one for New Year's resolutions and so I am not going to make one, but I do want to turn this into a proper blog with more regular updates. I have a part time job and just two units remaining on my course and so I should be able to not only post more often, but also do some promoting, right?

We shall see.

 To get the ball rolling, I have completed my transcript of the GNT of Codex Alexandrinus (available on the Downloads page). I have also been transcribing the Septuagint/LXX of Alexandrinus and so far have completed Hosea, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Haggai - the link for that is also on the Downloads page, the link is above the 02 GNT entry.

 The next update for the Minor Prophets will be Amos, but that has 146 verses and I've reached verse 9 of chapter 1, so it will be a few weeks until that is done.

 Another project I need to complete is the LXX journal files. In my last update I had completed Swete's version of the Minor Prophets (a coincidence) and I've done nothing since. My aim is to finish these, at least one a week, and get them up as well. Once I have the Affinity app installed on my new Linux machine that will start to happen as well. So depending on the size of the book, I hope to have a new volume or part volume up per week (God willing).

I would also like to start blogging through Alexandrinus and its features with my thoughts on what I've found. I would also like to make a Logos Personal Bible and maybe learn how to make them for some other software such as Accordance, Sword, and theWord, but that's for another day.

Finally I'm working to update the Alexandrinus font to Gentium 7.000, but that's low on my to-do list and will happen when I get to it. The journals are by far the more important thing and once they are done, I will focus on other things. I've made a start, but only the Bold font has had any work done and that's only to add Hebrew and Coptic.

So, God willing, I will be back in a week with a new journal document and possibly a post on the Gospel of Matthew of Alexandrinus.

New Year - New Goodies

Scripture Journals

I write this on 06 January 2025. In the past year I have been busy studying a Diploma of Graphic Design. My hope is that I can use this to improve the work I have been doing and, of course, to earn a living doing the things I love.

To start the new year I have added Scripture Journals for the Greek H.B. Swete versions of the 12 Minor Prophets to the downloads page. The next step will be to begin the longer books in the order Dr William Ross suggests for reading the LXX from easiest to hardest. God willing I will have these up by the middle of the year.

I have also done some housekeeping with the Greek New Testament and reordered the entries to reflect the traditional ordering of the books - Gospels, Acts, General Epistles (James, I & II Peter, I-III John, Jude), the Pauline Epistles (Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, Hebrews, I & II Timothy, Titus, and Philemon), and finishing with Revelation and giving them numbers that match the LXX books including the Apocrypha.

The plan is to eventually add the books referred to variously as Νόθοι (spurious) and Ἀντιλεγόμενα (spoken against). The latter also includes some of the books now widely accepted as canonical (e.g. Jude, 2 & 3 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation) but in this case will be books that were never considered canonical apart from small groups of early Christians and were included in manuscripts such as the Epistles of Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache.

Alexandrinus Transcript

Along with these I have uploaded an updated Codex Alexandrinus transcript with Luke, and I & II John completed as well as the first two chapters of the Gospel of John. The next update will come when John is complete along with at least II Peter, maybe I Peter as well.

After that will likely be Acts and James to complete the first two sections of the New Testament.

What Else?

Well ... I am also putting the finishing touches to a transcript of books 1 to 9 of the Preparation For the Gospel by Eusebius of Caesarea and hopefully will have a version for publication shortly. In addition, there is a typeface in the works based on Alexandrinus and other ancient manuscripts and I plan to work on an iOS version of the Bible App.

The Beginnings of a New Polytonic Codex Alexandrinus Transcript

I have uploaded a new parallel version of Codex Alexandrinus (hereafter 02) in a polytonic form to Downloads along with a typeface I'm working on for this project. The current version has the University of Muenster transcription in the left hand column and a new polytonic 'critical version' in the right column. Eventually, God willing, I hope to have the entirety of 02 from Genesis to Revelation available in a full Greek New Testament.

I had started with the Septuagint portion of 02, but thought it would be more immediately useful to have the New Testament and the epistles of Clement completed first. Part of the reason for this is that I would like to do a 'critical' version of 02 collated with the Family Π manuscripts that are believed to have been derived either directly from 02 or a common ancestor. This family represents some of the earliest Byzantine manuscripts, with the earliest being dated from around the 9th century AD.

The goal (God willing) is that I would create a new version with lacunae in 02 being filled with the equivalent Family Π text such as from Matthew 1-25:6. But this is a future goal and for the moment as clean a copy of the GNT as possible is the immediate goal.

The current version contains the surviving text of Matthew, the whole of the Gospel of Mark, 3 John, and the Epistle of Jude. I have begun by laying it out in a two column table with a verse to a cell to make it easier to compare the Muenster transcript to the polytonic text. I have a very rough and somewhat messy system* to indicate where 02 follows or differs from the Critical (CT), Byzantine or Majority (MT), and Erasmian or Textus Receptus (TR) families and where 02 goes its own way. I say this is messy because I'm using the 3rd Edition CNTTS apparatus, which is far from comprehensive or perfect**. In the future I will use the ECM apparatus which is more up to date and contains far more sources.

The styles markup is very rudimentary but should give something of an idea of the nature of 02's text and which way it leans. If you are using MS word you can open the Styles menu and see what the colours mean. It is far from comprehensive but should give an idea where 02 variants occur and what text-type they follow. When I have the full GNT I will begin working on a proper apparatus that more fully lists variants and in the case of variants unique to 02 what other manuscripts contain the reading.

I will update it as I go and make a note of this on the Downloads page as I reach the end of books. The next planned update will add the Gospel of Luke and maybe another short letter such as 2 John or Philemon. I like to break up the work by following a long text with a shorter one to keep the sense of progress coming along.

Note - I should make it clear, I'm not doing this for any theological reason or because I think 02 is the best manuscript. It is one of the oldest and therefore most valuable copies of God's inspired word surviving and that's one reason for this work. The Septuagint (LXX) is also valuable because it differs in some significant ways from other existing LXX texts.

Note 2 - you will need the Alexandrinus typeface found near the top of the Downloads page to properly display the text. There are currently no special characters not found in the SBL Gentium Plus typeface, but there will be in the final full 02 transcript. Other typefaces will display the text properly, but in the final version there are critical marks from the Grabe transcript I am working the LXX from***.

But, the primary reason is that I'm curious about the claim that it may be related to the Family Π Byzantine texts and I would like to know exactly how closely related it is. So far from what I've seen, it does share some characteristics with this family and is, I believe, a valuable witness to the bigger Byzantine family of texts.

It is available on the Download page for your edification.

I pray it blesses the reader and proves useful.

LXX and GNT app for Android

I've created a basic app for Android that includes Henry Barclay Swete's Septuagint as well as the unfinished Tregelles comparative GNT with the apparatus as it is presently.

It can be downloaded here

It's very basic and only uses the default app icons in the software I used to create it. It has the full text of both the LXX and GNT including OT apocrypha (e.g. such as additions to Daniel, 1-4 Maccabees, Enoch etc). It features a verse of the day (turned on in settings), highlighting, notes, and bookmarks. The books of the LXX are in the order laid out by Swete in his edition while Tregelles' are in the older order (Gospels, Acts, General Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Revelation) and the Text Critical Edition are in the traditional Western Protestant order.

Update (12 Jan 2024): I've reworked this app and made the following changes:

• Changed all book names to their Greek form (except for the Fathers)
  
• Separated the Tregelles GNT into its own group
  
• added the Text Critical GNT, a GNT based on the Robinson Pierpont text with critical notes
• Added the Apostolic Fathers in Greek.
• Reset the version number to 0.0.2