avi

This masterful introduction by Donald Morgan, explains the fact that there is no single text which can or could serve as THE bible. Each version has its own slight differences in text. Nevertheless, many, many people in this dark world and wide fervently believe in the inerrancy of their particular version of THE bible. My goals here are: first--to identify links to as many different versions of the "New Testament" as are available, in English, on the internet, and then--to compare the English translations of the following two passages in each of those versions:

A. John 10:30 "My father and I are the same," and,
B. John 14:28 "My father is greater than I am"

It will then be ultimately useful, at least to me, to compare the various English translations of these two passages with the "original" version in Greek. To accomplish that, one must identify for each of the English language versions, which particular Greek source has been employed by the various translators. At this time, I have no idea which Greek sources each of the following 19 web sites have harnessed. The two oldest extant Greek sources may not yet be available, and therefore, there may be some future changes in store, as these two manuscripts become accessible on the internet:

the Chester Beatty Papyrus, from the early second century CE, and the

Bodmer Papyrus dating from about 200 CE,

or, alternatively, perhaps included among these two extant fragments, the two passages from John under investigation, which pertain to Jesus' relationship to his (our?) "father" no longer exist.

Access to these ancient texts remains a high priority for the present inquiry. They may well have been already made available, I am simply ignorant, and look forward to learning from those on the forum who know something about these two papyrus fragments. Absent access to those two oldest documents, one must rely upon the two fourth century texts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, though I confess to being suspicious of any text published after Constantine became Emperor, because of his known meddling in religious affairs, coupled with his power to compel whichever editorial changes he desired, as well as his documented habit of destroying anything, (or anyone,) with which he had disagreement:
These two passages cited above from John, 10:30, and 14:28, merit particular interest, in my opinion, because of the controversies in the first three centuries of the common era, regarding the proper classification of Jesus of Nazareth: Was he God, himself, (itself?), or was Jesus merely a spirit appearing as a human, or was Jesus a second God, distinct from the first God, or was he afterall a mere mortal human, (perhaps, or perhaps not, in possession of God given divine powers, i.e. a "prophet",) or, was Jesus an entirely fictious character? The underlying assumption on my part, for weighting this pair of passages from one of the four "gospels" higher than other inconsistencies, is that it was this particular controversy--Just who (or what) was Jesus?--that led Emperor Constantine to convene the Council of Nicea in 325, that watershed event of such singular importance in the history of Christianity.

Several other controversies existed, (then in 325 CE, and in the centuries preceding Nicea, as well as today,) based upon the many different interpretations of the various books which have guided Christian thinkers during the past two millenia. However, the one issue which seemed destined to tear apart the Christian community in 325 CE, the issue which pitted Eusebius against his close friend Arius, the issue which was so prominent, (and so disputatious, that even Constantine's own son, Constantius II, who succeeded him on the throne, upon Constantine's death in 337 CE, disagreed with the conclusions of his father's Summit, in Nicea,) was the fundamental issue of just exactly who, or what was Jesus? Of course, one can argue, endlessly, about many other discrepancies found in the various gospels of the New Testament, including Jesus' presumed heritage from David, his birthdate, or the various versions of the "resurrection", or the many "miracles" he is said to have performed, etc..., but underlying all of the other ontroversies engendered by the many divergences in the texts of the New Testament, is the central issue: WAS JESUS Human, or DIVINE, and if the latter, then, what was Jesus' relationship to the ONE God, to which Christians pledge allegiance?

Though I have searched the IIDB, I may well have missed an important contribution to this topic, and if there has already been an elaboration of all the links to the existing English language versions of the New Testament, with a comparison of these two passages from John, then, I apologize to those authors for overlooking their contribution to the forum.

I freely admit that one could as well have compared John 10:29, with John 10:30, (instead of using John 14:28) with perhaps even greater facility: "my Father, ..., is greater than all,..." The choice of John 14:28 instead of John 10:29, is arbitrary. I don't really have a good reason for selecting one passage over the other. If the two fragments ultimately available to us, Chester Beatty, and Bodmer, contained only John 10, i.e. did not include John 14, that would suffice as justification for selecting John 10:29, contrary to what I have done by referencing John 14:28.

Links:
To date, I have found 19 English language internet sites with New Testment texts, including the two passages authored by John. I welcome any additions to this list:
1. King James version

A. I and My Father are one.
B. ...for my Father is greater than I.

2. American Standard Version

A. I and the Father are one.
B. ...for the Father is greater than I.

3. Amplified Bible

A. I and the Father are One.
B. ...for the Father is greater and mightier than I am.

4. American Bible Society Contemporary English Version

A. and I am one with the Father.
B. ...because he is greater than I am.

5. Darby Translation

A. I and the Father are one.
B. ...for my Father is greater than I.

6. Douay Rheims

A. I and the Father are one. (with explanatory note: "That is, one divine nature, but two distinct persons.")

Here, I agree with the Catholics, i.e. that Jesus and God are two distinct, different entities. I disagree, however, with their notion that these two distinct creatures "share the same divine nature." It is both illogical, and unreasonable for mere humans to compel a supernatural, omnipotent being to share anything with anyone. The divine power can already accomplish anything, at any time, in any circumstance, what need has such a power for replication of that capability in a second, or third, or nth iteration of itself? Since it is already omnipotent, nothing is gained by such replication.

B. ...for the Father is greater than I. (with the following explanation of this text: "It is evident, that Christ our Lord speaks here of himself as he is made man: for as God he is equal to the Father.")

n.b. This is precisely contrary to my own interpretation, i.e. I accept Arius' position that if Jesus is the "son" of God, then, there must have been a time when Jesus did not exist, hence, God (a supernatural, omnipotent being, with no need to reproduce himself,) must then, by definition, have been the more powerful of the two entities. Jesus is therefore NOT the equal of his Father, as these Catholics assert in their footnote, but rather, is INFERIOR to his father, exactly as the text reads, but contrary to their interpretation.

7. English Standard Version, ESV

A. I and the Father are one.
B. ...for the Father is greater than I.

8. Holman Christian Standard Bible, CSB

A. The Father and I are one. (here accompanied by the following elaboration: literally--> "I and the Father—We are one.")
B. ...because the Father is greater than I.

9. King James Version

A. I and my Father are one.
B. ...for my Father is greater than I.

10. New American Standard Bible, NASB

A. I and the Father are one.
B. ...for the Father is greater than I.

11. New Century Version

A. The Father and I are one.
B. ... because he is greater than I am.

12. New International Version, NIV

A. I and the Father are one.
B. ...for the Father is greater than I.

13. New King James Bible

A. I and My Father are one.
B. for My Father is greater than I.

14. New Life Version

A. My Father and I are one!
B. The Father is greater than I.

15. New Living Translation, NLT

A. The Father and I are one.
B. ..., who is greater than I am.

16. The Message

A. I and the Father are one heart and mind.
B. ...because the Father is the goal and purpose of my life.

17.Today's New International Version

A. I and the Father are one.
B. ...for the Father is greater than I.

18. Wycliffe's New testament from 1382

A. I and the Father be one.
B. ...,for the Father is greater than I.

19.Young's Literal Translation

A. I and the Father are one.
B. I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I.

n.b. Interesting that several versions do NOT write: OUR father, or THE father, but instead, clarify: MY father, as if EMPHASIZING Jesus' subordination to the paternal deity, i.e. polytheism, just as Arius proclaimed!! i.e. WE NEED THE GREEK "ORIGINAL", even for these two tiny phrases--there are so many discordancies. Isn't it interesting that at the last web site, 19, "Young's" the translators employed BOTH "the Father", and "my Father" in the same sentence? Was the original Greek text this remiss?? Is this an illustration of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, or, does the "original" Greek similarly reflect multigenerational editing/redacting influences, or possibly a careless lapse in copying the "original" manuscript? Was the original author, John, feckless, or is this distinction between "my" father and "the" father, but not "our" father, both contrived and irrelevant? How do the inerrant believers account for these textual differences? Is it possible that in Greek, there are no possessive (genitive) pronouns? Perhaps one of the more fluent grammarians on the forum could correct my possibly erroneous impression that the distinction between the possessive pronouns "my/our", and the indefinite article, "the", is pertinant to textual analysis.

The following study notes from these web sites accompany these versions:
(A: John 10:30)
1. Darby: "It is the work and the efficacious love of the Son, and at the same time that of the Father. It is not "I am"; but "I and the Father are one."

2. John Gill: "Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and [my] Father",
(esmen) , "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power;..."

3. JFB: "HE AND I HAVE ALL IN COMMON." Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true. And AUGUSTINE was right in saying the "We are" condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead), while the "one" (as explained) condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence)."

4. Henry: This denotes more than the harmony, and consent, and good understanding, that were between the Father and the Son in the work of man’s redemption. Every good man is so far one with God as to concur with
him; therefore it must be meant of the oneness of the nature of Father and Son, that they are the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. The fathers urged this both against the Sabellians, to prove the
distinction and plurality of the persons, that the Father and the Son are two, and against the Arians, to prove the unity of the nature, that these two are one. If we should altogether hold our peace concerning this sense of the words, even the stones which the Jews took up to cast at him would speak it out, for the Jews understood him as hereby making himself God (v. 33) and he did not deny it. He proves that none could pluck them out of his hand because they could not pluck them out of the Father’s hand, which had not been a conclusive argument if the Son had not had the same almighty power with the Father, and consequently been one with him in essence and operation."

5. Robertson: "One (en). Neuter, not masculine (eiß). Not one person (cf. eiß in Galatians 3:28 </OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=Ga+3:28>), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumuß (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius."

6. TFG: "This assertion as to the unity of power residing in the hand brings forward the idea of the general unity which subsists between the Father and the Son. This unity Jesus asserts fully, without limitation or restriction; the unity of interest, design, and essence are all included."

7. Wesley: "Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God."

(B: John 14:28)
1. John Gill: "not with respect to the divine nature, which is common to them both, and in which they are both one; and the Son is equal to the Father, having the self-same essence, perfections, and glory: nor with respect to personality, the Son is equally a divine person, as the Father is, though the one is usually called the first, the other the second person; yet this priority is not of nature, which is the same in both; nor of time, for the one did not exist before the other; nor of causality, for the Father is not the cause of the Son's existence; nor of dignity, for the one has not any excellency which is wanting in the other; but of order and manner of operation: these words are to be understood, either with regard to the human nature, in which he was going to the Father, this was prepared for him by the Father, and strengthened and supported by him, and in which he was made a little lower than the angels, and consequently must be in it inferior to his Father; or with regard to his office as Mediator, in which he was the Father's servant, was set up and sent forth by him, acted under him, and in obedience to him, and was now returning to give an account of his work and service; or rather with regard to his present state, which was a state of humiliation: he was attended with many griefs and sorrows, and exposed to many enemies, and about to undergo an accursed death; whereas his Father was in the most perfect happiness and glory, and so in this sense "greater". That is, more blessed and glorious than he; for this is not a comparison of natures, or of persons, but of states and conditions: now he was going to the Father to partake of the same happiness and glory with him, to be glorified with himself, with the same glory he had with him before the foundation of the world; wherefore on this account, his disciples ought to have rejoiced, and not have mourned. "

n.b. Is Gill's notion not remarkably similar in outlook to the newly discovered lost gospel of Judas?

Toto

Hi avi - welcome to IIDB. Your first post is a bit complex, but let me start. . .

Flattery is a good start!

Is there any reason to think that the "original," however defined, exists?

Someone will jump in here and object that no one we know of in the first three centuries claimed that Jesus was a fictional character. Which faction did you have in mind here?

I assume you are interested in this question for historical reasons?

You might want to check this old thread The father, my father. The idea is that gJohn was compiled from two sources that were interwoven, and "the father" and "our father" serve as markers, or remnants. I see that there are some references to the Koine Greek there that may help you.

thentian

(14:28) Transliterated it for clarity. The greek is from Westcott/Hort which I prefer since they use only the oldest manuscripts, including Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but NA27 and UBS4 gives it exactly the same:

oti o patēr meizōn mou estin
because the father greater(than) me is


(10:30)

egō kai o patēr en esmen
me and the father one are

I really can't see how someone could translate "the father" to "my father", but I guess there was a felt need to connect Jesus and Father closer together.



Strong's Number 3588 (ὁ: the, this, that, one, he, she, it )

avi

Thanks Toto and thentian, two very helpful, and educational responses, MUCH APPRECIATED!

I spent most of yesterday studying the situation, primarily as a result of your two excellent posts.

Here's what I have found, so far: (It goes without saying that my amateurish transliteration is undoubtedly NOT CORRECT, thentian's version is the proper one!)

Here are five different (also mentioned in the previous thread on this very similar topic, as noted by Toto, but that author, "Gamera", transliterating John 10:29, neglected, if I am not in error, to include the html link to the site) Greek versions of every sentence in the new testament, (but none written in the oldest (all capital letters), "uncial" font) and includes also one Latin, and five or more English versions.

The three newest Greek versions for John 14: 28 all express the same thought:

...ton patera oti o pateer moy meizon moy estin

while the two oldest versions (from Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, but not written at this web site in "uncial" font) omit the first "moy"

...ton patera oti o pateer meizon moy estin

Questions for the Inerrantists:

1. Which Greek version is correct for John 14:28?, i.e. with or without the first "moy"?

2. Why are there several different English versions for the same Greek passages? I count at least six different versions among the 18 unique web sites posted at the outset of this thread. Which Greek version corresponds to which English versions?

Is this English language of ours so terribly arcane and convoluted that it is impossible to simply translate, uniformly, the same Greek phrase in the same fashion, every time?

3. Do the words "MY father" and "THE father" convey the IDENTICAL theological meaning? (For, they surely DO NOT convey the same linguistic thought.)

4. Why did the author(s) of "John" not write "OUR father"? Surely, "John" did not mean to imply that Jesus expressed the thought that God represented his creator, but not ours?

5. How can a person concurrently be "ONE" or "the same as" another, and ALSO be unique, distinctive? Would Jesus' DNA confirm his purported lineage from David, i.e. via Joseph? How could, and why should Jesus have DNA identical to human DNA, if he is divine, with the Holy Spirit contributing half of the genome? How can Jesus be the "same" as God, if his DNA is half human? i.e. from Mary.

Chili

Hello avi, while I do not claim to be an innerantist I do have an explanation for your problem. The solution is quite easy, really, but is not to be found in theology which after all is the ambition of students who are not in the know or they would be one with the father no longer greater than they (to make a short cut here let me add that Gogol would agree with this in DEAD SOULS "he has no equal, he is God").

The words MY father and THE father are used to show that my father has become personal after the convergence of the father with the son. The son here is called Jesus but is just as generic as the father prior to the event that united these two . . . or there would not be a father for a son nor would there be a son for a father to unite into one.

For simplicity sake an allegory may be used in which the father is the right brain and the son is the left brain wherein obviously the left brain cannot be conceived to exist without the right brain just as the right brain can not be conceived to exist without the left brain. From this follows that every father has a son [if only to make the father known] and every son will have a father who created him . . .wherefore now 'your' father is not 'my' father while yet the creator is the same in that we all are created by the father and have been conceived in the womb of the woman here now called Mary.

It has nothing to do with DNA but at best with RNA wherein DNA is conceived without human imperfection . . . or Mary would not be the sinless virgin of virgins to make purity known which is not to say that imperfection is wrong but only is good to make perfection known.

You should also consider the idea that the trinity collapsed when the father became one with the son that only comes about in the presence of Mary upon the absence of the human condition that long since when divided these two.

bacht

hi avi

Isn't the author of John considered to be a mystic or proto-Gnostic? I would be surprised then if he didn't exhibit some fuzziness in describing the Son and the Father.

As you say, there was controversy about the person of Christ after the Gospel picture of a Galilean messiah became accepted.

avi

Thank you bacht, for your suggestion, it is one I had not considered.
I assume, perhaps completely incorrectly, that the issue is not one of Gnosticism, but rather one of censorship/redaction/editorial changes. Maybe I am too paranoid.
Here's a succinct summary of my question:
in John 14:28 one finds:
" ...o pateer moy..." in the most recent editions (translated I believe, without expertise, as "the father mine"), and in the OLDER versions, i.e. Codex Sinaiticus:
"...o pateer ...", i.e. without the "moy", i.e. without the "mine" in English, i.e. without the possessive/genitive pronoun. I don't see this as a problem of Gnosticism, but rather one of intrusive editing. What I cannot understand is WHY the extra "moy" was added to the text? What was achieved by that change, and, then, too, of course, gosh, how many other changes were ADDED to alter the text to conform to someone's political desires?

thentian

If Jesus says "my father" he is affirming his special status as being the son of God, as opposed to just a son of God, as we all are, figuratively speaking. However if he says "the father or "our" father, he makes no such special claim. At least that is how I see it, and I suspect those who have redacted or mistranslated the scripture looked at it the same way.

Personally, I am not sure if Jesus (assuming HJ) ever claimed to be divine. If we remove all the scriptures that have clearly been mistranslated or interpolated I suspect we'll remain with very few verses where he does make that claim. These may well have been edited previous to the earliest sources we have. Considering how ready even modern translators are to slip in their own theologies, it would not be surprising if the ancients did the same. It is so easy to insert a little "my" there, just to ensure that the "true" meaning becomes "clearer". I'm sure Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, but that is not the same as claiming to be part of a triune God.

Cheers!

Toto

I would like to recommend a book that I just read, which may shed some light. I have been intended to write something about it, but things keep getting in the way.

R. Parvus has posted here about his self-published book "A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings" which can be ordered here.. You can also search for his posts here from his profile, in particular this one on the gospel of John, where he lays out some of his theory.

avi

Thank you Thentian, astute and precise as always. Much appreciated. Do we have any inkling of WHEN this second "moy" was added to the Greek text, or upon whose instructions it was inserted? Do most scholars consider this insertion a simple copying error by some well meaning scribe, rather than a deliberate political "enhancement" ordered by some regal prince?