The variant, John 5:44b, is as follows:
monou qeou ou zhteite (traditional text, Byz., א A C etc.)
monou ---- ou zhteite (B, P66, P75 [early Alex. h.t.])
ΜΟΝΟΥΘΥΟΥΖΗΤΕΙΤΕ... (physical written form with abbrev.)
monou [qeou] ou zhteite ... (Westcott/Hort text)I've taken the liberty of reposting this discussion by Steven Avery from TC-Alt List, for the benefit of those studying h.t. errors and modern translations:
----------------------------------------- QUOTE: (Steven Avery) ---
[TC-Alternate-list] John 5:44b - the honour that cometh from God only ? - text and translation issues
Hi Folks,
Related verses, first.
Luke 5:21
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying,
Who is this which speaketh blasphemies?
Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him,
Why callest thou me good?
there is none good but one, that is, God.
Daniel Buck had an interesting post about a sister verse on a sister list.
About the "from God only" verse, John 5:44.
His post is at bottom, we will work our way there.
This post covers both the textual and translational issues, weaving a tapestry :) .
================================================
John 5:44 (AV)
How can ye believe,
which receive honour one of another,
and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
================================================
HISTORICAL VERSIONS
This English, which fits the context excellently, was simply the English Bible text through the Reformation era and into the 1800s. There is no indication of any other understanding of the text from the Greek and Latin experts of the Reformation era.
Studylight.org
Wycliffe 1395 - ye seken not the glorie `that is of God aloone?
Tyndale 1526 - the honoure that commeth of God only?
Coverdale 1535 - and seke not the prayse, that is of God onely?
Rheims 1582 - glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?
Geneva 1587 - the honour that commeth of God alone?
We should remember that in the 1500s and 1600s, the learned men in the Bible church and university centers were extremely skilled in Latin and Greek, iron sharpeneth, without arcane papers and publish or perish. Reading the Bible and the ECW, reading classics, speaking to one another daily, even having debates in Biblical Greek. While today's scholars can even be non-fluent in the language. This simple truth of scholastic and linguistic distinction can be a bit hard for today's scholars to acknowledge, understandably.
================================================
RESOURCES
Laparola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=50&rif2=5:4
Major, overwhelming, evidence for the traditional text, and a severe Alexandrian split.
As stated by Will Kinney in discussing modern version confusion.
The So-called "Science" of Textual Criticism. Science or Hocus-Pocus?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/scienceoftextcrit.htm
Here Vaticanus, P66 and P75 all unite in omitting the word GOD,
yet it is in Sinaiticus, A and D and this time the NASB, NIV include it too!
John Hurt
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C005.htm#V44
monou qeou ou zhteite
monou qeou ou zhteite - brackets for (qeou) in WH
World Wide Study Bible
http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/John/5/44
John Gill (1697-1771) does reference the fact that the versions and the Greek have variant readings.
and seek not the honour that cometh from God only;
or "from the only God", as the Vulgate Latin; or "from the one God", as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it:
================================================
ECW
This is the type of verse where there what need to be a close examination of the the ECW. Since the English can conceivably have the same translation issue as in the Bible text, yet often the context makes the understanding clear.
Hilary of Poiters - De Trintitate 9:22
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ix.html
But there is reproof of the unbelief which draws an earthly opinion of Him from the teaching, that goodness belongs to God alone ... For, in this very same discourse in which He pronounces that His works testify of Him that He was sent of the Father, and asserts that the Father testifies of Him, that He was sent from Him, He says, The honour of Him, Who alone is God, ye seek not ... . But there is reproof of the unbelief which draws an earthly opinion of Him from the teaching, that goodness belongs to God alone .... He comes in the name of the Father: that is, He is not Himself the Father, yet is in the same divine nature as the Father: for as Son and God it is natural for Him to come in the name of the Father. Then, another coming in the same name they will receive: but he is one from whom men will expect glory, and to whom they will give glory in return, though he will feign to have come in the name of the Father. By this, doubtless, is signified the Antichrist, glorying in his false use of the Father�s name. Him they will glorify, and will be glorified of him: but the glory of Him, Who alone is God, they will not seek.
And by the context of the usage it is clear that Augustine is most consistent with the Traditional Text understanding.
Augustine
On the words of the Gospel, John v. 39, �Ye search the Scriptures,
because ye think that in them ye have eternal life,� etc. Against the Donatists.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.lxxxi.html
Then a little after; �How can ye believe, who look for glory one from another, and seek not the glory which is of God only?�
The translator of Gregory of Nyssa is interesting, as he ends up with both phrases.
Gregory of Nyssa
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.all.html
For the very glory that was bestowed on the lawgiver was the glory of none other but of God Himself, which glory the Lord in the Gospel bids all to seek, when He blames those who value human glory highly and seek not the glory that cometh from God only. For by the fact that He commanded them to seek the glory that cometh from the only God, He declared the possibility of their obtaining what they sought. How then is the glory of the Almighty incommunicable, if it is even our duty to ask for the glory that cometh from the only God, and if, according to our Lord�s word, �every one that asketh receiveth
Diatessaron
http://www.thomasephillips.info/diatessaron.htm
And how can you believe, while you receive praise one from another, and praise from God, the One, you seek not?
================================================
SIMPLICITY, CLARITY, CONSISTENCY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT
and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
Contextually this is very sound, intuitively obvious to the most casual observer .. as the context of the verse and section is clearly where does honour come from ? Yet in the late 1800s a new translation was begun.
The new dubious translation took over most of the Westcott-Hort modern versions, and the NKJV.
ERV - the glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not?
ASV - and the glory that [cometh] from the only God ye seek not?
NIV - praise that comes from the only God?
NET - praise that comes from the only God?
Holman - you don t seek the glory that comes from the only God.
NKJV - honor that comes from the only God?
Three that did not go into this particular error.
NRSV - comes from the one who alone is God?
Youngs - and the glory that is from God alone ye seek not?
NLT - the honor that comes from God alone.
================================================
TEXTUAL --> CORRUPTION BY WHO ?
The dropping of qeou was noted by John WIlliam Burgon to be a corruption. Notice that it is hard to determine to what extent the corruption in the English began because of Vaticanus lacking qeou. Burgon does not give it a special doctrinal aspect.
Chapter IV. Accidental Causes of Corruption (1896)
John William Burgon - Edward Miller editor
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/corruption.iii.v.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=c3VCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45
From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS. written thus,� [Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i.e. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), the middle word ([Greek: theou]) got omitted from some very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run thus in English,��And seek not the honour which cometh from the only One.� It is so that Origen, Eusebius, Didymus., besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives only in B at the present day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error.
Overall, there is an emphasis in modern translation theory to rewrite the NT text to put the current Christology emphasis into the text, even if awkward to the text and context. (Think e.g. of Granville Sharp and 1 John 5:20.) This verse is sort of the flip side of a Granville Sharp translation corruption.
UNITARIANS (LOW CHRISTOLOGY)
In fact, this looks like it was pushed by George Vance Smith, for the Revision, with doctrinal considerations being significant.
Texts and margins of the revised New Testament affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed. (1881)
George Vance Smith
http://books.google.com/books?id=TdfYDjdkRlwC&pg=PA45
The sole Deity of the Father has been re-affirmed in a remarkable case in which the authorised version had singularly misrepresented the original words. 'The only God ' of John v. 44, affords evidence equally strong and clear with that of John xvii. 3, that the writer of this Gospel could not have intended to represent Jesus, the Christ, or Messiah, or even the Logos in him, as God in the same high sense of Infinite and Eternal Being in which He is so.
This Greek text, in translation, was changed in the Revision as described here:
Presbyterian Review
Notes on the Revised New Testament (1833)
Marvin R. Vincent
http://books.google.com/books?id=OUk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA668
John v. 44,
"the only God," laying the emphasis on God as God alone,
and on the honor as taking its character from that fact ;
and not on the fact that the the honor can be had from only one source.
Notice that the Revisionists were apparently going with the Vaticanus text in this translation change, as they put qeou in brackets. (With the corrupt text the translation fits better, in fact it is virtually mandated, because of the change of emphasis "the only" becomes .. "the only what" .. becomes .. "the only God".) However later other versions decided on this translation for the traditional text.
Thus the NASV translation is considered particular friendly to those with an aversion to the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh:
Joel Hemphill
http://www.trumpetcallbooks.com/trinity_truth.html
"The one and only God ...the Father"
And thus most NT today follow the new translation idea.
================================================
RECENT DEBATE - HUSHBECK - NACHIMSON
The traditional translation here is sometimes attacked.
KING JAMES VERSION ONLY
by Elgin L. Hushbeck Jr.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/hushbeck_article.html
... poor translations ....In John 5:44 the Greek text very clearly reads "...and seek not the honor that comes from the only God." Among other things this is a strong statement of monotheism. Yet for some reason the King James Version translates this as "and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?" Here any reference to monotheism is removed, and it becomes a statement that honor only comes from God.
Notice the backwards logic -- any reference to monotheism is removed. A typical case of taking the modern debate and retrofitting it to an earlier time .. when there was no dispute and debate and the text was fully accepted. Nothing was removed in the AV, whether you consider the text pure or incorrect.
The Rudimentary Factor Underlying Infallibility
Alleged "Errors" In The A.V. 1611
Jeffrey D. Nachimson
http://www.gospelbaptist.net/gpage.html2.html
In Greek, the passage looks like this: "pos dunasthe humeis pisteusai doxan para allelon lambanontes, kai ten doxan ten para tou monou theou ou zeteite;" ...
Beginning in verse 30 in John 5, Jesus Christ discusses the plethora of witnesses that testify to his ministry and authority. He lists the testimony of John the Baptist (vs. 32-35); his works (vs. 36); the Father (vs. 37); the scriptures (vs. 39); and notice in verse 41 where Jesus Christ states exactly where he DOESN'T GET HIS HONOR FROM! Why the discussion is how to know if something or someone is from God, AND THE HONOR THAT ONLY GOD CAN GIVE! No one in this context bats an eye about monotheism! There isn't an inclination anywhere in 47 verses that one person (including the lost Pharisees) is discussing the necessity of monotheism. For Hushbeck to conjecture that the A.V. rendering doesn't uphold monotheism in the passage because it doesn't translate the prepositional phrase as an adjective, is bordering on the realm of the absurd. The point is where do REAL testimonial witnesses and honor originate? REAL honor comes from God ONLY, not the only God.
John 5:41
I receive not honour from men.
Nachimson is right on the basic issue of context. My thought .. when you incorrectly change the translation to match one idea, you eliminate or lessen, and confuse and confound, the actual sense of the text. (Similar to what we see in the Granville Sharp retranslation verses.)
Nachimson
... it is evident that based upon the context of John 5, and the clear fact that adjectives (even if in the attributive position in a prepositional phrase) can function adverbially to form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation. Thus, the A.V. 1611 preserves the better reading "that cometh from God only?" instead of, "that comes from the only God?" ...
In fact, the contextual argument is probative, while the grammatical can remain ambiguous. Thus when Hushbeck was defended here by Henry Neufeld:
Anatomy of a KJV Only Argument
By Henry Neufeld
http://henrysthreads.com/2006/07/anatomy-of-a-kjv-only-argument/
Neufeld takes Nachimson to task on attitude points (the 'ol KJB and attackers arguments) and minor points (e.g. the phrase "form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation"). And he does emphasize the points that allow us to consider the grammar ambiguous (ie. Nachimson over-tinged his grammatical presentation).
Neufeld does not seem to understand how attackers of the traditional text work their trade when they fabricate a little error here or there in the AV. (Classic example, Daniel Wallace and others and the gnat). "Oh, we weren't really attacking the Bible, we were simply pointing out an error". Yet they go through hoops to fabricate the error, rather than simply offering an alternative translation.
However Neufeld flops on the basic point. You have to be a bit naive not to see that context is king in the verse, and the context fits the traditional text .
(Unless you use the Alexandrian corruption, a point missed by everybody).
=====================================================
Now we go to Daniel. Daniel also began an interesting thread on this in the b-greek forum in March 2011.
Text of the tc-list below.
TC and the translation of John 5:44b - March, 2011
Daniel Buck
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tclist/message/995
Daniel takes a slightly different approach. One weakness in the textual theory of corruption is that "the only God" is not really the historical understanding of the verse, so to presume a corruption away from what was not understood is questionable. Plus if "the only God" was a problem, you should see a lot of variants on the ultra-solid textually John 17:3.
John 17:3
And this is life eternal,
that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Also the timing is wrong, since the textlines were divided by the 200s and the doctrinal emphasis would be centuries later.
These are common type problem in an Ehrmanesque approach.
Although Daniel tends to be far more logical, consistent and sensible than Bart :) .
====
VULGATE
Presumably the tampered Vulgate text was the Nova Vulgate, which really should be called a Vulgate at all. As to a large extent it is simply a Westcott-Hort (or NA) text brought to Latin. In this case perhaps they took the Hortian-Vance-Smith-modern translation to mangle the historical Latin.
However, according to Gill the Vulgate does support "from the only God", but this does not match the Latin ECW like Hilary and Augustine, nor does it work with what is shared by Daniel "from God alone ... Vulgate (all 15th-16th century editions)".
So the Vulgate questions are still a bit in the air.
=======================
On the basic textual question, I doubt that there was much of a doctrinal motive in the word dropping corruption, but the two main Greek texts could easily lead to multiple Latin texts.
Remember, too, that motives are not either-or. An initial word-drop can be totally accidental, its maintenance in the line can include a scribal motive component that includes doctrinal preference. This seems to be overlooked in most discussions.
========================
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Another point overlooked, on another topic. In the first centuries, century one and two, maybe three, Bible transmission was likely often single books, or small groups of books. Thus there is no "one size fits all" type of text-type applicability. Mark's gospel could of been far more influenced by Latin elements, (even original Latin or Graeco-Latin elements, and possibly back-translations) while the geography--transmission--> of John's gospel could be very different than Luke-Acts. Variables abound.
Afaik, this is not mentioned in the Hortian fantasies of the neutral and Alexandrian dual textlines. However, it also does not seem to mentioned by any text-line adherent, including the Greek Byzantine and Majority proponents. Their theories want to go back to a single exemplar for the NT. However there was no such thing, as writing and transmission of the NT books had both independent and overlapping components.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
Daniel Buck
There is a question of translation in the latter part of John 5:44, and textual criticism can help to answer it.
The Greek text:
KAI THN DOXAN THN PARA TOU MONOU QEOU OU ZHTEITE?
and the glory the from the only God not you seek?
The question is, can this be translated "from God alone" as it is in all English Bibles from the 14th to 18th centuries?
Here is how the Latin manuscripts translate it (fine-tuning of the translations by Latin scholars would be welcome):
from God alone | e g1mg 9A f l 11A Vulgate (all 15th-16th century editions)
from God who alone is | ff2 aur q
from him who is God alone | r1
from the only God | a d c Vulgate (all modern editions)
. . . God . . . | j
from the sole (one) | a
from him that is the only (one)| b
Now, interestingly enough, behind some of these Latin variants lie variants in the Greek text.
from the only begotten God | N022, 1071
from God | 1519
from the only (one) | p66 p75 B03 W032 228 355* (also the mss from all Coptic dialects, and some Armenian mss)
Evidence from Syriac should also be examined. It has been translated both ways-- the only God, and God alone.
Apparently the difficulty in deciding the meaning of this phrase, TOU MONOU QEOU, has led to some of the textual diversity. There seems to have been a definite reluctance to understand Jesus as referring to "the only God," resulting in the loss of either MONOU or QEOU. Yet "the only God" fits the context of John 5 very well, in which Jesus is being accused, through referring to God as "My Father," of making himself equal with God--something he never said outright in John, as deity-emphatic as that gospel is.
I don't know if this verse has ever made it onto the list of Orthodox Corruptions, but it's possible that a reluctance to have Jesus minimize his deity could have been behind some of the textual changes we see above.--------------------------- END QUOTE ---
On the other hand, the tendency only in the last century and a half has been to adamantly insist on a translation of "the only God," even going so far as to putting a reading into the Vulgate never before found in any printed edition. This phenomenon could also bear investigation.
Mr. Scrivener's Additional Comment:
Re: John 5:44b - the honour that cometh from God only ? - text and translation issues
It is interesting to note the following in regard to both the variant and its
interpretation:
Trollope (1842) skips comment, with the English text presenting no difficulty in
his view.
Burton (1852) regards the traditional text as secure and so self-evident that he
skips comment on the verse entirely.
Bloomfield (1847) takes the traditional interpretation at face value and ignores
the blunder of Codex B's text:
"Here is traced the reason for their unbelief, by their fostering such passions as stifle the love of God, and consequently the love of truth, for itsown sake; especially pride and vain-glory.
- πως δυνασθε ] This must, of course be understood of what is socontrary to the usual order of causes and effects, that it cannot be expected to happen. And δοξαν λαμβ. must be taken with due qualification."
Wordsworth (1877) accepts the traditional text, ignoring the homoeoteleuton of
B, but remarkably takes the alternate translational suggestion without
hesitation, in favour of the Trinity:
"44. παρα του μονου θεου] from the Only God. (1 Tim 1:17) Lest the Jews should imagine that He was contravening their Law which says (Deut. 6:4) 'the Lord our God is One Lord.',because He had spoken of Himself and the Father as Two Persons (verses 17-23), He here affirms the Divine Unity, and teaches them that they who profess zeal for the One God do not honour Him aright (see v23), unless they honour the Son even as they honour the Father. A warning to those who claim for themselves the title of Unitarians, and deny the Divinity of Christ. No one can be said to believe in the Divine Unity who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity."
Alford (1863) even more surprisingly, but accurately in this case, upholds the
traditional text also, easily identifying the reading of Codex B and its allies
as a homoeoteleuton error. Here even Alford has abandoned the critical text,
retaining "God" in the main text and relegating the variant to the footnoted
apparatus:
"om θεου (homoeotel) B lat-a b copt-dz arm-mss Orig Eus. "Alford opts for the alternate interpretation however:
Alford's position on the interpretation seems to have the stronger rational"44. ...παρα του μονου θεου] not 'from God only' (E.V. and De Wette), which is ungrammatical (requiring μονου to be either after θεου, see Matt.4:4; 12:4, 17:8, or before του θεου, Luke 5:21; 6:4; Heb 9:7 - Lucke); but from the only God: in contradistinction to the idolatry of the natural heart, which is ever setting up for itself other sources of honour, worshipping man, or self, - or even, as in the case alluded to in the last verse, Satan, - instead of God. The words του μονου θεου are very important, because they form the point of passage to the next verses; in which the Jews are accused of not believing the writings of Moses, the very pith and kernel of which was the unity of God, and the having no other gods but Him. "
element in regard to the situational context (internal intrinsic evidence), but
Wordsworth's position has the weight of tradition as opposed to the novelty of
the Unitarians.
As Steven Avery has shown, there is also another element of internal evidence,
the very argument of Jesus that honour (homage) belongs to God /alone/. In this
case, Jesus and his Jewish audience can be assumed to take for granted that "God
is one", and the debate is rather about the appropriateness of honours being
commonly and frequently given to peers, and its negative effect on worship and
honour of God.
The very fact that Jesus and the Jewish interpreters agree on the Torah teaching
that 'God is One' (and expects this view) makes it less likely that Jesus would
emphasize that rather than the more central (to this argument) Torah teaching,
that 'God is jealous' (cf. Ten Commandments) and expects critically important
minimal behavioral standards.
mr.scrivener
mr.scrivener
