David Lim wrote:Jonathan Robie wrote:Thanks, Carl and Stephen! I'm convinced.
Actually I am not convinced. I had not read the version in the critical text until I saw this post, but I had read the Byzantine text earlier and never found anything problematic with the phrase "ο γεννηθεις εκ του θεου τηρει εαυτον" within the larger context. I understood it to mean "the [one] who was begotten out of God keeps himself [[from sin]]", in parallel with the earlier phrase, "every [one] who has been begotten out of God does not sin", and moreover it is reiterated in the next sentence, "we know that we are out of God ..." This repetition made it clear to me that this meaning was intended, especially since similar statements were made in 1 John 1:6-7, 2:29, 3:3-10, which imply that a believer should (actively and not passively) walk in the light, do the righteousness, purify himself, not do the sin, which is the lawlessness, remain in Christ so that he does not sin, because God's seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten out of God. So I see no reason why the Byzantine textual variant is not indeed a possible alternative. Does anyone have a good reason to identify "ο γεννηθεις εκ του θεου" as "ο υιος του θεου" based on the context, apart from that one word "αυτον"?
This is pretty much a matter of "You pays your money and you takes your choice" and "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" There is a significant textual difference between the MS readings. Do you choose the reading on the basis of what you think the text means or do you decide what the text means on the basis of the reading presented to you? Actually, of course, you make your choice pretty much at the same time on both questions. If it makes sense to you to say that the regenerated believer protects himself, then you'll find no difficulty in identifiying the two phrases πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. On the other hand, if we understand the two clauses following the ἀλλὰ as parallel explanations for this immunity of the every regenerated believer to sinfulness, then it's a matter of, "If God is for us, Satan's temptations are in vain."
You evidently think it odd that γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ should refer to Christ as Son of God, as if this were not a Johannine notion. But it is also the case that many do
not think that ὁ γεγεννημὲνος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ means exactly the same thing as ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. That the two formulations do
not mean the same thing is
exactly what the NA27 committee thought, as Metzger's textual note makes clear:
5.18 αὐτόν {B}
The Committee understood ὁ γεννηθείς to refer to Christ, and therefore adopted the reading αὐτόν, which is supported by A* B 330 614 itr vg syrh copbo al. Copyists who took ὁ γεννηθείς to refer to the Christian believer (although elsewhere John always uses ὁ γεγεννημένος, never ὁ γεννηθείς, of the believer) naturally preferred the reflexive ἑαυτόν (ℵ Ac K P Ψ 33 81 1739 al).