avi

Thanks for the links Toto, I read his thoughts on John last night. Quite interesting. I am too unfamiliar with that 1st and 2nd century cast of characters to make any sense of his ideas, yet. Maybe in a year or two, when I have acquired more of the fundamentals of this business, I shall have a better grip on where he is going.

thentian

I think a rough guess would be between the 4th and the 6th century, but don' take my word for it as I'm no kind of expert on that sort of thing. As for who ordered it, or if it was at all ordered, I think that would be pure speculation. I'm inclined to think that it was done by some "well meaning" scribe myself, and I think that would be the attitude of most scholars. (I'm not one of them, btw, just an amateur!) But then, the large majority of biblical scholars are christians, aren't they?

Cheers!

andrewcriddle

My Father in John 14:28 appears to be the reading of the original scribe of Codex Sinaiticus but the contemporary corrector (ie proof reader) changed it to Father with My Father restored by a corrector a couple of centuries later.

If I'm right about this it a/ puts the reading My Father back to the 4th century at the latest and b/ suggests it was in origin the type of modification that scribes without careful correctors were liable to make.

Andrew Criddle

Chili

It is figurative only until that special status is ours according to the "follow me" command that Jesus made wherein we, finally, as much as take Jesus down from the cross and place ourselves upon it . . . unless, of course, they left him already at John 6:66.

Let me add here that whatever exists in the imagination must exist in reality as well; yes, but not utill all human imperfection has been removed from it.

avi

Thanks Andrew for your comments.
May I express my surprise upon reading your submission, for I was under the impression that Codex Sinaiticus has not yet released gJohn.
Is it published somewhere else?
Secondly, I think I may disagree with your idea that the insertion error, i.e. addition of "moy", represented the type of error that "Scribes without careful correctors were liable to make".

Why do I contest your assessment? Well, in my opinion, not a fact, the error we are discussing is NOT as you have written it: i.e. a change from "the father" to "my father". Yes, that makes sense, as you have expressed it in ENGLISH. But, that's not an accurate representation of the issue, in my opinion, Andrew, from the point of view of the Greek language. We need to remove our English hats here (substitution error by tired scribe), and think GREEK (insertion error commanded by a powerful political person):

o pateer

versus

o pateer moy

In particular, I guess that many sentences in the four gospels have this kind of INSERTION error, which, to my way of thinking is NOT due to Scribe fatigue. For one thing, if I were a scribe, I would be tired, and I certainly would not want to exert myself anymore than necessary. Accordingly, I certainly would not be keen to ADD EXTRA ANYTHING. For another point of view, consider modern day Court reporters: one may think ill of the legal profession, but those clerks who transcribe testimony have a certain professional aura about them, and they dislike being told that they have committed an error. They strive, in other words, to transcribe EXACTLY what was said, and I suspect that accords rather well with the professionals who copied the four gospels nearly two millenia ago. I doubt, in other words, your assessment attributing fatigue to this insertion error. I think the inclusion of "moy" was deliberate, and contrary to the oldest extant versions. Then my question is, how do you know, Andrew, as you have written, that the "original scribe" wrote:

o pateer moy

but then some lazy, unmonitored scribe appeared on the scene one dusty day, and deleted the moy to save ink, and then someone else came along, a few decades later, and reinserted the "moy" in the newest Greek text versions?
Where's the evidence for such an amazing sequence? How do you know that the original version possessed the "moy", for I have precisely the opposite impression? If I have properly understood your perspective on this matter, then you believe that the two oldest codices, as transcribed and appearing on the aforementioned website, (posted yesterday, or the day before) represent corrupted data, since, they don't have the "moy" present, and that the newest versions represent MORE ACCURATELY the original version, than the oldest extant versions. Contrarily, I believe that it is the other three Greek versions, all of which contain the "moy", which have been modified from "the original", again with deference to Toto's point, a couple of days ago, how does anyone know what the "original" version included?

Here's what the Catholics write:
Do we have independent text from Origen or Justin Martyr, or anyone else, quoting John 14:28? Are you certain, Andrew, that Codex Vaticanus includes "moy"?

andrewcriddle

What I said was based on the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland
There is a facsimile of Sinaiticus John 14:28 here http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2001/GA01_057b.jpg but you can't determine successive correctors.
No of course I wan't suggesting that.
Before Sinaiticus left the scriptorium it was corrected by another scribe, (the equivalent of a modern proofreader), centuries later other corrections occurred. In John 14:28 the original scribe wrote hO PATHR MOU his colleague/checker corrected it (marking MOU as an error) but the correction was reversed by a much later scribe.
Vaticanus lacks MOU. I have never sugested otherwise.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

I have seen [A] argued as meaning "one in purpose" rather than "one in being", though I couldn't tell you if that's a valid interpretation, as I don't speak Greek.

thentian

It is a possible interpretation, IMO. Oneness in the spiritual sense only. It seems to me that some theologians, then, would like to read it as: I and my father are one (and the same), while it is at least equally likely that the original meaning was more like: I and the Father are one in purpose. [I want what the Father wants?]

thentian

Thanks for that link! Wow! That site has a bunch of goodies! Love it!

Chili

But the father has no wants. The father is, as in "I AM [that [which] I am]." The Father and Son are one but not yet fully intergated into one at this time just yet. The Gospels stop before that but the Coronation of Mary is when the two are fully one in the acknowledment that Mary is the richess of heaven on earth in this one mind . . . which then is when the sea is no longer and therefore darkness no more as it was before evening followed on the first day but not again followed on the seventh day.