Highly plausible hypothesis, but so is the other one. Therefore, we are still left with the question. Which we need to personally decide and notate. Either way, makes no major problem when the context tells all.

A mistake repeated is still a mistake

How is it “subjective” any more than the other “subjectives”? What we actually have are earlier manuscript’s (even albeit 5) that show “first hand original” that were or are actual and/or suspected of “second hand correction”. But what does is actually matter? The over all context show’s the subjective object in question. Verse 3:13 mentions Jesus Christ. The whole biblical story is about Jesus coming in the flesh to save us-“the great mystery of God”. The whole verse of 3:16 is obviously about Jesus. Whether 3:16b is “The, He, He-who, which, who, God, Jesus” they are all referring to God-Jesus mystery in the flesh. However, I can definitely see why “the second hand corrector” would make the correction to “God” and why the majority texts would have more plausibility in being the correct “word” originally. The subjective object in context is God and His mystery of godliness in which God is mentioned 2x’s in 3:15 along with “…the mystery of [his] godliness. Therefore, we ARE talking about God and specifically Jesus-God/Man which 3:16 is VERY clearly talking about. Can’t be any other! So if “I” were to translate it to my own literal post exegesis scientific critical state it might be written, “…the mystery of godliness (I.e. the entire content of God’s plan of salvation): God was manifested (revealed) in the flesh [by the incarnate Christ Jesus],…”

My critical question is: can the older 5 mss show a succession lineage still in usage? If not, can it be considered a dead end via Gods providential preservation of the Word?

Did he examine it using modern devices?

@@richiejourney1840 The modern device of prejudice? No. He just believed what his own eyes told him.

the Lection has been the main reason postulated for the absence of the PA. Since the PA wasn't to be read on the day it appears, it was sometimes moved to the end of John or left out for the convenience of the daily reading.

Right?!? A Friend of mine found another crazy one in acts 2:40 "Save yourself"... Good grief!

NLT still isn't as horrible as NIV....

Which "NIV"??? The 1984, translated by a 115-person team, or the 2011 NIV, with basically a 15-person text on the CBT? There are two dofferent English versions with two different NT base-texts.@@toomanymarys7355

Yeah, I believe it was Burgeon who collated them and found Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to differ in the Gospels along more than 6000 times. For scale, that the difference between the entire Critical Text with the Entire TR!

I wonder what you guys think about the top down videos I have in a playlist Untold History of the Bible - even if only 80% of that research was correct - it would help to get an idea, how much of the confusion relates to the Counter-Reformation

as the documentaries are quite long, a good start would be either the fourth or the second video in that playlist

I was blown away by the fact that there were only 5 pre-9th century mansucripts in Greek of 1 Timothy!

@@Dwayne_Greenonly 5 Greek manuscripts pre-8th century for I John 5:7 also.

@@Studio54MediaGroup Which manuscripts?

@@Dwayne_Green 01, 02, 03, 048, 0296 are pre-8th century (and never chemically date tested for even being that old.). That's all we got extant. Only 14 total are pre-10th century and the majority of omissions are 11th to 16th centuries in the Greek.

@@Studio54MediaGroup Okay, I misread your statement. These are not necessarily witnesses of 1 John 5:7-8, but rather witnesses of 1 John in general.

I do plan on doing that!

No, I havent!

@@Dwayne_Green You should investigate it, I discovered it recently, and it makes your position on the Byzantine text even clearer.

That is not entirely wrong, there are many instances where it's impossible to determine why a specific reading ends up where it does. There's often more than one reason for one reading over another.

I'll be doing an update shortly on the project, but right now we don't have a print date. BUT the main text and the print edition apparatus is essentially complete, QC is almost done, but will be adding one more feature which I'll share about in the update video. In the meantime, Pickerings F35 text does a good job in the comparisons and Adam Boyd's Text Critical Greek New Testament is also very thorough in this respect :)

It still does matter. Jesus is indeed the referent, unless its the neuter pronoun as in D, which would make it 'mystery' (yes, we can infer Jesus here two, but it's an interpretational step further). But with "God manifest in the flesh", it's explicit that Jesus is God.

@@Dwayne_Green Thank you and Grace to you.

indeed! I will tackle some of what you stated here in future videos, as I said toward the end, it was a much bigger study than I had initially thought. With that being said I would question your last statement "And also chances for oc to be changed to theos is more than chances of theos to be changed to oc". All it takes for oc to change to theos is the simple fading of a horizontal line, and if you look through the uncials you can see many instance where those lines have indeed faded. A consistent natural process I would think has much more force than the proclivity of a bunch of scribes to make the same change, and then not question for centuries!

Dirk Jongkinds book gives a pretty good overview :) www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Greek-New-Testament-Cambridge/dp/1433564092/ref=sr_1_3?qid=1706993264&refinements=p_27%3ADirk+Jongkind&s=books&sr=1-3 Also be sure to read the various prefaces of the current printed Greek New Testaments :)

@@Dwayne_Green Thank you! Does this engage any of the basics surrounding manuscript traditions?

Chapter three gives a good overview of a lot of the older manuscripts. I know you said a single volume, but James Snapp just released a book as well, that starts from the VERY beginning. I haven't finished it yet, but it so far provides a decent foundation. www.amazon.ca/New-Testament-Textual-Analysis-divinely-ebook/dp/B0CR18P767/ref=sr_1_16?crid=2YRGDVS0ETO0X&keywords=james+snapp+jr.&qid=1706994766&sprefix=james+snapp+jr+%2Caps%2C149&sr=8-16

@@Dwayne_Green thank you!

Other quick question, I wanted to see if you know of any good texts that contain an organization or summary of manuscripts? Like a concordance of manuscripts that you can reference the verse in question and see the collection of manuscripts referenced and some of the considerations surrounding the rendering of them being the typical rendering? (Forgive my ignorance on the proper phrasing, I am learning!)

It is an interesting note to see that no one attempted to 'correct' the reading back to he who (That is until the advent of the critical text). The correction ALWAY goes from 'He who' to "God".

That, and I don't know how many times I've come across the commentary where it says something like "The committee decided this reading was better", without giving any detail why!

@@Dwayne_Greencan always ask the committee

I wasnt even aware of that translation!

@@Dwayne_Green would love a review of it after you’ve checked it out

​@@veneroantonio905 a very weird "translation" indeed by "I Saw the Light Ministries". Problematic on so many levels. The unnamed translator claims that it is free from the biases of the "denominations of man" and that he has some special insight into the meaning of the original. He puts "Jesus" in the Old Testament wherever YHVH occurs. This reeks of a quack job. It's self-published probably because no reputable publisher will touch this with a 10-foot pole. It's worth reviewing if only to point out how scriptures can be mutilated.

Except when 2 are doubtful (A, C), 2 have singular readings (D, 061), and 1 has the reading ΟΣ (aleph). And those are the only "early" Greek manuscripts.

Might mean not must mean.

@@richiejourney1840 “must mean”is ok as it is expressing an opinion about something that is logically very likely.

There's another theta in the same line right in the middle so it's not covered by Ephraimi's text. It seems theres about the same amount of space under the cross-beam as the one in question. Note that my red over-drawing was rather difficult to do as I was using a mouse...

I too find drawing with a mouse difficult. My cat keeps attacking my hand.@@Dwayne_Green

OR…it might contextually read Christ Jesus (the Word that was manifested). The pericope (and indeed all the text from the start) was about how the Deacon’s should be acting in the living God’s House and personal lives. Just before the pericope the preceding pericope ends with “…great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”. In the pericope of 1:12-17 Christ Jesus is mentioned 4 times, called Lord twice, King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, who came into the world to save sinners. Then proceeds to the whole great mysterious reason for their piety (godliness) to behave as such in the living God’s house. That great mystery?…that person they have great confidence and faith in?…Christ Jesus…the God they already established…”He who was manifested in the flesh…”. Thus, another way, “Great indeed we confess that great mystery of our faith and piety: Christ Jesus was manifested in the flesh,…”. We can say this in many ways. Yes we could say “God was manifested…” as some redactors wanted along with a traditional line of them which could be right, but the whole thing was honing in on the specific 3rd Person of our triune God-Christ Jesus. He’s the only Person of God who came in the flesh and is a part of the great mystery. In context we could say, “God in Christ Jesus was manifested…”. If the early manuscripts are correct it really changes nothing and even goes with the contextual flow that they already established-namely Jesus Christ who is God. Thus, you have early attestation from a lot of early sources actually-like the earliest church fathers…for “He-who” and others that have “which” that are early. Later extant “some” are “God”. This is definitely a variant situation worth noting and keeping. It can be a doctrinal concern, but not a major hoop to jump through. We know from the whole context that the “He-who” is God and specifically Christ Jesus. INDEED THE REASON OF OUR GODLINESS IS A GREAT MYSTERY!

The same sort of phenomenon occurs at John 01:18. Again, there are THREE variants, though the vast majority of the commentators discuss only two. 1. The true reading is O MONOΓΕΝΗC ΥΙΟC, contracted to O ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗC ΥC. 2. Later, either accidentally or by design, ΥC has been misread as, or has been changed to ΘC. 3. But then it was realised that the phrase Ο ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗC ΘC presented a grave problem, as the definite article would prevent, eg, the Father from being God. So, the article was dropped, to give us the reading ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗC ΘΕΟC. Again, this is the most economical and rational explanation of the THREE variants.

At 1 Timothy 03:16, the true reading, ΘΕΟC ΕΦΑΝΕΡWΘΗ EN CΑΡΚΙ, does not mean that the Father - O ΘΕΟC - appeared in flesh, or that the Godhead was incarnated. The absence of the article is important in showing that it is not god-quantity or god-identity that is in mind, but god-quality or god-characteristic. [The same is true at the first word of John 01.18.] What God is, was seen in flesh, in the Man Christ Jesus [Compare the same writer at 1 Timothy 02:05.]

At John 01:18, the true reading, O ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗC ΥΙΟC, is rightly translated as “the unique Son”. [Compare the early Latin rendering - *still preserved in the Latin version of the Nicene Creed* - “unicus Filius”.] The wrong reading, “ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗC ΘΕΟC’”, cannot possibly be translated as having the definite article : the garbled renderings of many modern versions are really quite dishonest in intruding the definite article or its equivalent. And as for translations that like to have both “God” and “Son” ……!

Because the translations you just used have “He,” used a text basis by those who put the N/A and UBS together (that reject it as God) it must be true. That is a circular argument. However, what is so mysterious about a man being manifested in the flesh? All men are manifested in the flesh! It doesn’t even make sense to say He, now to say God is manifest in the flesh, there is a mystery.

@@liveluke9.236who was the “Word that became flesh”? Does not John also describe the “Word was God” as also “he” and “him”? Does not 1 Tim not also talk about the “who” Christ Jesus and is God and that “he”, “him” and “his” is also a descriptor along with the “who”? Is not Paul talking about the great mystery of our godliness and why Deacons should be godly in their personal lives as well as godly in the house of the living God? Paul is talking about Christ Jesus all over the place-the “He-who was manifested in the flesh”. Paul is not talking about the triune God-head here. Paul is specifically talking only about the 2nd Person of God-Christ Jesus. The God-Head did not manifest in the flesh but was revealed through the Son of God/Son of Man our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus he-who was manifested in the flesh. THAT is the mystery of our faith and the reason of our godliness. Context is everything.

@@liveluke9.236by the way, the critical text does not reject God in anyway. Everything is there to see. It’s up front and honest by very godly men. Their base text is just their scholarly opinion and everyone is free to choose the variants they want to. But 1 Tim 3:16 is specifically about Christ Jesus and not the entire God-Head-even though Jesus did reveal the entire God-Head while He was in the flesh while on earth.

@@richiejourney1840 Yes, context is everything. And you have taken me out of context. I never said the critical text rejects God, or that Jesus is not God. I use the ESV, my pastor uses the ESV, I’ve done all my memorizing out of the ESV. My point is that a man made in the flesh is not mysterious. When my son was born I didn’t say why was he born a human in the flesh? But since Jesus, the second person of the trinity is born in the flesh, that is a mystery. Also, he was using translations based on the critical text, to make his point, and I believe that is reasoning in a circle. I believe the Byzantine text is more accurate on this text. I reject TR only(ism), I disagree with the NA and the UBS when it differs from the Byzantine text. I believe all of these text types teach the deity of Christ very clearly. I may have not been clear in my above post, so my response is not about exegesis it’s about text platform or the underlying text. This is a disputed text in the manuscript tradition. I would disagree with the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew because the critical text doesn’t include the doxology of the prayer and I would disagree with the woman caught in adultry and the ending of Mark. So again my disagreement is text not the deity of Jesus or pronouns. Cheers, brother!

”Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who have received a faith equal to ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.“ ‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬ ‭CSB‬‬

@@bryanlovesjesus2204 Interesting, now for the KJV version: "... through the righteousness of God and OUR Saviour Jesus Christ..." The New American Bible (Revised Edition) admits in a footnote: "The words translated 'our God and savior Jesus Christ' could also be rendered “our God and the savior Jesus Christ..." In other words, a clear distinction between God and Jesus. We also clearly see the distinguish in the second verse: "Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.." (All trinitarian Bibles read similarly). 2 Peter 1:2

​@@patrickpettyjr.3134The original Greek called Jesus God. Get over it.

The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as God over and over so that whosoever can be certain 100% that Jesus is God. Also confirmed throughout the books of the Bible. Jesus is everlasting and the all and in all. Jesus is the only way to God The Father. Jesus is the answer for He is The Door. Jesus, The I AM is standing at the door. Believe in Jesus

@@patrickpettyjr.3134you don’t know Greek that’s why you go with Bible versions that apparently agrees with you. In 2 Peter 1:1, it’s the Granville sharp rule where two nouns are preceded by a definite article “the” and are joined together by an “and”. This rule in Greek makes both nouns refer to one person, ie for this case, Jesus. And for the KJV, do you know other instances where “the [Noun] and our [Noun]” is used? I suggest you look for it. If that’s the case, you just made two persons for God the Father in some passages of the KJV. I’ll give you an example after you reply to these points.

Vaticanus doesn't contain anything after Hebrews (1 and 2 timothy often came after Hebrews in the uncials). In fact, that later portion of Hebrews was likely damaged and the pages had been rewritten in a later miniscule script sometime after the 9th century.

Metzger used the this fact to explain why codex d has a neuter noun, his reasoning is that the scribe who copied it couldn't reconcile the masculin pronoun with anything so make it neuter to match with μυστήριον. I think this is quiet speculative though, as there are a number of other reasons D could've had the neuter pronount.

@@Dwayne_Green I prefer Burgon's expiation. Thanks.

@@Dwayne_Greenis it not also correct that Greek word order can be changed and mean the same thing? Dr. Daniel Wallace has shown that there are 100’s if not more ways to structure a Greek sentence that means the same thing. So why the big hub bub? Besides, the word “mystery” is followed by a raised colon. Thus, “mystery:”. There is no issue with the (os) following. I find this in every Greek text and grammar that I have. If it’s intolerable then why do the translating scholars have no issue with it?