John 1:18

You are confused. I said you were wrong in claiming only Greek mss. count. Raymond Brown does not say so.

====================

From my studies, Irenaeus, Origen and Clement of Alexandria are all mixed witnesses. You might want to do your own checking before using quotes. Your last quote of this nature had about five errors.
I find this really strange. Of course only Greek witnesses count, because translations cannot be trusted with such Graecisms as "monogenes theos".
 
I find this really strange. Of course only Greek witnesses count, because translations cannot be trusted with such Graecisms as "monogenes theos".

Nonsense.
From Tertullian, skilled in Latin and Greek.

Against Praxeas, 15

[6] Et vidimus gloriam eius tanquam unigeniti a patre, utique filii scilicet visibilis, glorificati a patre invisibili. et ideo, quoniam sermonem dei deum dixerat, ne adiuvaret 20 adversariorum praesumptionem quasi patrem ipsum vidisset, ad distinguendum inter invisibilem patrem et filium visibilem superdicit ex abundanti, Deum nemo vidit unquam. quem deum? sermonem? atquin, Vidimus et audivimus et contrecta- vimus de sermone vitae, praedictum est. sed quem deum? 25 scilicet patrem, apud quem deus erat sermo unigenitus filius, qui sinum patris ipse disseruit.

Chapter XV.—New Testament Passages Quoted. They Attest the Same Truth of the Son’s Visibility Contrasted with the Father’s Invisibility.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xv.html

“And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;7945 that is, of course, 611(the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the invisible Father. And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as it were: “No man hath seen God at any time.”7946 What God does he mean? The Word? But he has already said: “Him we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.” Well, (I must again ask,) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him. (John 1:18)

unigenitus filius == μονογενὴς υἱός

This is not complicated, and shows why Tertullian is one strong evidence for the Traditional text and is not a mixed evidence.

==========

Hort covers it on p.43 of his:

Two Dissertations.(1876)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rrppAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA43

Hort adds Novatian, Victorinus , Vigilius , Hilary , Ambrose , and Augustine, to start.

==========
 
Last edited:
Nonsense.
From Tertullian, skilled in Latin and Greek.

Against Praxeas, 15

[6] Et vidimus gloriam eius tanquam unigeniti a patre, utique filii scilicet visibilis, glorificati a patre invisibili. et ideo, quoniam sermonem dei deum dixerat, ne adiuvaret 20 adversariorum praesumptionem quasi patrem ipsum vidisset, ad distinguendum inter invisibilem patrem et filium visibilem superdicit ex abundanti, Deum nemo vidit unquam. quem deum? sermonem? atquin, Vidimus et audivimus et contrecta- vimus de sermone vitae, praedictum est. sed quem deum? 25 scilicet patrem, apud quem deus erat sermo unigenitus filius, qui sinum patris ipse disseruit.

Chapter XV.—New Testament Passages Quoted. They Attest the Same Truth of the Son’s Visibility Contrasted with the Father’s Invisibility.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xv.html

“And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;7945 that is, of course, 611(the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the invisible Father. And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as it were: “No man hath seen God at any time.”7946 What God does he mean? The Word? But he has already said: “Him we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.” Well, (I must again ask,) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him. (John 1:18)

unigenitus filius == μονογενὴς υἱός

This is not complicated, and shows why Tertullian is one strong evidence for the Traditional text and is not a mixed evidence.

==========

Hort covers it on p.43 of his:

Two Dissertations.(1876)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rrppAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA43

Hort adds Novatian, Victorinus , Vigilius , Hilary , Ambrose , and Augustine, to start.

==========
Hort says "The Latin patristic evidence is properly speaking only a branch of the evidence of Latin versions. So far as it refers clearly to St John's own text, it supports huiós exclusively."

So what? Perhaps the Latins translated everything "unigenitus filius" irrespective of whether the Greeks read monogenes huios or monogenes theos? Prove that they didn't. Latin has no article, unlike in Greek, and so Latin is a less sophisticated language. May be they just couldn't be bothered to replicate monogenes theos differently from monogenes huios? I agree with Hort.
 
So your position is that the verse, with God in the text, teaches:

"perfect and eternal Sonship within the Godhead, for which Origen and Athanasius contended"
No. I neither understand monogenes theos in a Trinitarian sense (as o monogenes huios - eternal sonship within the Godhead) nor in a Valentinian/Arian sense (as o monogenes theos - the Logos begotten of the Father at a specific point in time or outside of time).

I understand the phrase to be referring to the human son (monogenes - Christ): he who is the ultimate expression of God in the John 10:34-36 sense of the theos descriptor (but not title) being applied to a man (i.e. meaning here divinely begotten son of God) remaining always within the bosom of the Father, even as a human being.

For I see John 1:18 as referring to the human Christ to the exclusion of the Logos: after Jn 1:14 the Logos fades from view and the human son takes over: him who declares the Father, where "Father," an OT designator, only has application to humanity.

Moreover I disagree with Hort that o monogenes huios in John 1:18 was always accidental. Although there is nothing wrong with o monogenes huios, in the context of John 1:18 I believe it was an intentional Trinitarian corruption in order to foment the idea of the eternal sonship of the Logos, which harmonized Christianity with pagan systems of belief, which included the idea of Gods begetting Gods in heaven.

Trinitarians then combined it with the philosophical eternal generation of the Son, and with the philosophical homoousios, to fortify their doctrinal system of a tripartite "o theos" which supervenes the biblical "o theos" who is the Father alone. Later the Trinitarians added the Holy Spirit, who under the Trinitarian system proceeds from the Father or from Father & Son (depending on the branch of Trinitarianism).
 
Last edited:
Moreover I disagree with Hort that o monogenes huios in John 1:18 was always accidental. Although there is nothing wrong with o monogenes huios, in the context of John 1:18 I believe it was an intentional Trinitarian corruption in order to foment the idea of the eternal sonship of the Logos,

Do you see all the NT
monogenes huios
as Trinitarian corruptions?
 
Do you see all the NT
monogenes huios
as Trinitarian corruptions?
No. What's significant about John 1:18 is (a) that the monogenes theos/huios context is the "bosom of the Father" hinting at synonymity with the Logos to those unaware that monogenes could only infer a human being in the context of the Jewish scriptures (i.e OT), (b) that the Valentinians & Arians were abusing John 1:18 to allege that that the Son was a "begotten God" or an inferior God.

The Trinitarians killed two birds with one stone by adopting o monogenes huios in John 1:18. They killed off the Arian and Valentian interpretation of an inferior God, begotten by God at some fixed point in or outside of time, and by linking o monogenes huios with the Logos they perpetuated the idea that there was no subsantive difference between the Son and the Logos: hence allowing the creedal ideas of "the (heavenly) only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons) [i.e. eternal generation] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father" Constantinople Creed AD381.

But I believe these scenarios are alien to the OT, and by inference the NT, where the Son and the Monogenes both relate to the jurisdiction of earth, and only by extension / projection do they infer the jurisdiction of heaven. The Logos and the Spirit of God are merely permanent fixtures in heaven, by my way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
When did “Trinitarians” create this variant?
According to Hort (Two Dissertations) at p.34, the first evidence of the Greek variant monogenes huios (without the article) is in the fragment against Noetus by Hippolytus of Rome circa 200AD, now generally recognised to be the close of the Syntagma against Heresies of the early 3rd century. He cites Lipsius and Harnak as authorities. If this is so, it could suggest that the monogenes huios variant first arose amongst the Latins.

From the evidence of the Valentinians, Hort suggests that monogenes theos is directly attested at least to the 2nd quarter of the 2nd century AD.

Hort also cites the parts of Iraeneus based on only a (later) Latin translation (assumed 4th century) as evidence for old Latin textual corruption; but Hort is certain that Irenaeus. used monogenes theos due to the phrase "Unigenitus Deus qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit” also appearing in the Latin version of Irenaeus.
 
… Hort is certain that Irenaeus. used monogenes theos due to the phrase "Unigenitus Deus qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit” also appearing in the Latin version of Irenaeus.

Earlier you took the position that the Latin texts are not relevant in telling us the original Greek text.

Since the Latin evidence, manuscripts and ECW, massively supports monogenes huios.

Consistency would help.
 
Earlier you took the position that the Latin texts are not relevant in telling us the original Greek text.
This is the position.

Since the Latin evidence, manuscripts and ECW, massively supports monogenes huios.

Consistency would help.
Internal inconsistency as between Greek and Latin texts is the exception here. Inconsistencies have arisen between the Greek and the Latin sources of Irenaeus's book, where the Greek of Irenaeus is incomplete. We still wouldn't have credited the later Latin translation of Irenaeus as good evidence, due to monogenes theos being in the Greek text.

But here we can point to inconsistencies even in the later Latin translations, where there is no Greek source text, as evidence of the text's subsequent corruption by Latin versions of John's gospel in the fourth or later centuries.
 
Last edited:
Internal inconsistency as between Greek and Latin texts is the exception here.

Your explanation is very hard to follow.

Where is there “internal inconsistency” as between Greek and Latin and where is there not “intangible inconsistency” since you say the inconsistency is the exception.

Do you now agree that the Latin texts can be very relevant in a proper study? Noting that you do quote them at times. Are they only relevant when they (rarely) support your position?
 
Your explanation is very hard to follow.

Where is there “internal inconsistency” as between Greek and Latin and where is there not “intangible inconsistency” since you say the inconsistency is the exception.

Do you now agree that the Latin texts can be very relevant in a proper study? Noting that you do quote them at times. Are they only relevant when they (rarely) support your position?
Latin texts are relevant to Latin, but as Hort shows, they are not paricularly interesting as they invariably discover the "unigentus [filius][Dei]" rendition which is common to all Latin scriptures of John 1:18.

Irenaeus is exceptional for two reasons: (a) we have a partial Greek text of his original work which shows one instance of "monogenes theos," (b) we have a Latin translation that includes one instance of "unigentus deus" along side other instances of "unigentus" contextual to John 1:18.

See Abott's study in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1861, Vol. XVIII, at page 840 "
ON THE READING " ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD," IN
JOHN I. 18 ; WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO THE STATEMENTS OF DR. TREGELLES."

What I find interesting is that monogenes theos disappeared after the widespread Valentinian "Monist" heresy (so termed), where o monogenes huios is clearly linked to the rise of Trinitrianism. But if you look at Paul's teaching, it is distinctly monist rather than trinitarian (although not Valentinian).

Valentinianism: "In the Fullness, or in those things that are contained by the Father, the whole creation which we know to have been formed, having been made by the Craftsman or by the angels. It is contained by the ineffable Greatness, as the center is in a circle, or as a spot is in a garment." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 2:4:2). All things continue to be a part of God despite their apparent separation from him.

"The fact that we have come forth within the Father does not imply that we are acquainted with him. According to Valentinus, God is ultimately responsible for the creation of all things "It is he who created the entirety and the entirety is in him" (Gospel of Truth 19:8-9) However, the "entirety" i.e. those within the Father "were unacquainted with the Father since it was he whom they did not see"(Gospel of Truth 28:32-29:1). Being only a small part of reality, they are unable to perceive it completely on their own. In vain, "the entirety searched for the one from whom they had emanated" (Gospel of Truth 17:4-6). It is something of a paradox that we are within God, yet we do not recognize or know him. As Valentinus says, "It was quite amazing that they were in the Father without being acquainted with him and that they alone were able to emanate, inasmuch as they were not able perceive and recognize the one in whom they were" (Gospel of Truth 22:27-32)"
 
m easy on this one: no fixed views. I find myself veering to antiquity as the original, but I also believe there is a case for seeing monogenes theos as a corruption due to monogenes theos not being found anywhere else in the bible.

Do you know what a hapax legomenon is?
It refers to a term that is used only once in the Bible.
So you're saying that a Biblical author can't use a phrase only once in the Bible?
I think that's a very unreasonalble assumption.

But "monogenes" is a compound word, coming from "monos" (only) and "genos" (kind), so it plainly means, "unique", or "only of its kind". This is why it is translated as "only" when it's not describing the godhead (eg. Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38). And since it only refers to people, to understand it as "only begotten" seems redundant and awkward.

Further, the reason it was originally misconstrued as "only begotten" because it was originally assumed that it game from the term, "gennao" (to become), rather than "genos" ("kind"). So "begotten" is clearly a mistake.

I find it interesting that you prefer the rendering "the only begotten son of God". I find this to be problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, are you aware of any manuscripts which have the rendering, "monogenes uios theos"? If not, then you shouldn't translate it from a reading that doesn't exist. Better to translate it based on what's there, and interpret it after that (such as JW's taking Acts 20:28 and interpreting it as, "the church of God which He bought with the blood of his own [Son]". Of course, likewise Acts 20:28 doesn't read "son", and it shouldn't be interpreted in that way.

Further, if you want "theos" to be understood as possessive "theou" ("of God", or "God's"), then why wouldn't it be in the genitive case, as we see "son of God" elsewhere (Matt. 8:29, John 1:49, etc.)

I also find it curious that you want to interpret "monogenEs" as substantival. There is no reason to do that, unless for theological reasons you reject what the text otherwise says. We have "o monogenEs huios", where the adjective and noun match in gender, number, and case, so there is absolutely no reason not to interpret it as attributive.

There are a couple of textual criticism issues which I believe also support "only God" rather than "only son". The first is that all extant manuscripts from the first four centuries read either "monogenEs theos" or "ho monogenEs theos". The reading for "son" doesn't appear until the 5th century. And the earlier manuscriptures are more trustworthy, since the original text had to occur prior to the later reading.

The other issue is a principle repeated by many textual scholars, including Daniel Wallace, "Choose the reading that best explains the other variant readings". So here is the issue. Everyone knows that John loves using the expression, "monogenEs huios", it's going to sound somewhat odd to come across "monogenEs theos". A scribe might believe a previous scribe made an error, and so change it to "huios". Or if the scribe has been transcribing John's works for a while, he may have muscle memory to subconsciously change it to "huios". However, if the original reading was "huios", there's no reason to change it to "God". This is also an example of the principle that the harder expression is more likely to be the original, because a scribe is more likely to change a difficult reading into an easier one, than to change an easier reading into a more difficult one.
 
What I find interesting is that monogenes theos disappeared after the widespread Valentinian "Monist" heresy (so termed), where o monogenes huios is clearly linked to the rise of Trinitrianism. But if you look at Paul's teaching, it is distinctly monist rather than trinitarian (although not Valentinian).

While it is a severe textual corruption, to say monogenes theos disappeared after the Valentinian heresy is nonsense, as we find it showing up in some manuscripts and, in the post-Valentinian period, Eusebius, Arius, Athenasius, Basil, Auxentius of Milan, Apostolic Constitutions, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius and Didymus. A fairly lively group, some using both variants, some only "God".

There was an attempt by Marcellus to link Arius to Valentinus so that one can be optional.
 
Do you know what a hapax legomenon is?
It refers to a term that is used only once in the Bible.
So you're saying that a Biblical author can't use a phrase only once in the Bible?
I think that's a very unreasonalble assumption.
You put that assumption in my mouth. I made so such assumption in the words you quoted. I was dealing with possibilities, not probabilities. I think monogenes theos is probable.

But "monogenes" is a compound word, coming from "monos" (only) and "genos" (kind), so it plainly means, "unique", or "only of its kind". This is why it is translated as "only" when it's not describing the godhead (eg. Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38). And since it only refers to people, to understand it as "only begotten" seems redundant and awkward.

Further, the reason it was originally misconstrued as "only begotten" because it was originally assumed that it game from the term, "gennao" (to become), rather than "genos" ("kind"). So "begotten" is clearly a mistake.
Monogenes where used contextual to people in the bible, always means "begotten."

I find it interesting that you prefer the rendering "the only begotten son of God".
The Greek "only begotten [anarthrous] theos" cannot translated by "only begotten God" - "monogenes" has no application to heavenly deities begetting each other in heaven (per Valentinianism). Indeed it seems probably that the Greeks, at least in the early church, got rather fed up with God's emanating God's in heaven, as per the Valentinian/gnostic theories. This type of gnosticism never really left the church, and IMO its legacy is the high Trinitarianism of the 4th and subsequent centuries.

find this to be problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, are you aware of any manuscripts which have the rendering, "monogenes uios theos"? If not, then you shouldn't translate it from a reading that doesn't exist. Better to translate it based on what's there, and interpret it after that (such as JW's taking Acts 20:28 and interpreting it as, "the church of God which He bought with the blood of his own [Son]". Of course, likewise Acts 20:28 doesn't read "son", and it shouldn't be interpreted in that way.
As "......μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ" is found in John 3:18, "only begotten son of God" is perfectly valid.

Further, if you want "theos" to be understood as possessive "theou" ("of God", or "God's"), then why wouldn't it be in the genitive case, as we see "son of God" elsewhere (Matt. 8:29, John 1:49, etc.)
See above.

I also find it curious that you want to interpret "monogenEs" as substantival. There is no reason to do that, unless for theological reasons you reject what the text otherwise says. We have "o monogenEs huios", where the adjective and noun match in gender, number, and case, so there is absolutely no reason not to interpret it as attributive.
Monogenes can be substantival - see Heb 11:17. So no problem, especially where next to another noun other than son/daughter.

There are a couple of textual criticism issues which I believe also support "only God" rather than "only son". The first is that all extant manuscripts from the first four centuries read either "monogenEs theos" or "ho monogenEs theos". The reading for "son" doesn't appear until the 5th century. And the earlier manuscriptures are more trustworthy, since the original text had to occur prior to the later reading.
The issue with "monogenes theos" is mainly one of translation. English doesn't have a simple way of expressing the concept, unless theos be expressed using the word "divine," which is possible, as linguists concede that theos when anarthrous predicate is somewhat adjectival (cf. NET translation of John 1:1c "fully God" - a distasteful expression). But the problem with the adjective "divine" is that it has more than one meaning, so theologians don't like the word.

Another problem is that "God" in English always denotes "The Only God" and so always includes the Father. It can never exclude the Father unless the context renders "god." "God" is almost always a specific reference to the Father. Thus calling Christ "The only begotten God" creates major theological issues: it's just an appalling expression lacking any effort at clarity; and further suggests that Christ was begotten in heaven, and not on earth, and thus engenders an improper rendition of "monogenes."

So English has problems translating "theos" where theos is anarthrous and not subject. In the case of "monogenes theos", theos is naturally predicate i.e. it is easily capable of being read "monogenes [is] theos." This could be rendered "The only begotten [son] is divine" or "The only begotten son [of God] is God [by reference to the application of theos to men (cf. John 10:34-36)]."

These linguistic problems are why English can only offer a paraphrase of monogenes theos. English "God" isn't the same as "theos" in Greek. Theos in the Greek can, contextually, be applied to "men", whereas English "God" can never be applied to men, because it is a specific reference to He who is in heaven.

The other issue is a principle repeated by many textual scholars, including Daniel Wallace, "Choose the reading that best explains the other variant readings". So here is the issue. Everyone knows that John loves using the expression, "monogenEs huios", it's going to sound somewhat odd to come across "monogenEs theos". A scribe might believe a previous scribe made an error, and so change it to "huios". Or if the scribe has been transcribing John's works for a while, he may have muscle memory to subconsciously change it to "huios". However, if the original reading was "huios", there's no reason to change it to "God". This is also an example of the principle that the harder expression is more likely to be the original, because a scribe is more likely to change a difficult reading into an easier one, than to change an easier reading into a more difficult one.
"The only begotten son of God" is as good a paraphrase as any, but perhaps does not express the full force of the phrase. The right answer is that monogenes theos is of such significance that it requires a paragraph to express its meaning. It denotes Jesus as divinely begotten, i.e. coming from God and being of God, just as he said.

Monogenes theos repudiates the subtle unitarian adoptionist heresies, which envisage Jesus as "the Christ" solely by reason of predestination, that are so prevalent today. It is amazing just how subtle these heresies are.
 
Last edited:
While it is a severe textual corruption,
I ignore this.

to say monogenes theos disappeared after the Valentinian heresy is nonsense, as we find it showing up in some manuscripts and, in the post-Valentinian period, Eusebius, Arius, Athenasius, Basil, Auxentius of Milan, Apostolic Constitutions, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius and Didymus. A fairly lively group, some using both variants, some only "God".
But the issue is how monogenes theos became to be used by these much later writers. Was it used to refer to Jesus, or was it uses to refer to the Logos being begotten in heaven? (I assume the latter.)

The original Valentinian heresy was superseded by Valentinian-style gnosticism, which carried on for a long time after Valentinian. Tertullian is a good read here, explaining how subsequent gnostics departed from their progenitor Valentinus. I theorize that high Trinitarianism (which articulates God the Father begetting God the Son in heaven begetting God the Holy Spirit in heaven) was likely influenced by Valentinianism - it was after all the gnostic-element of the church that promulgated full-blown Trinitarianism for all it was worth.

There was an attempt by Marcellus to link Arius to Valentinus so that one can be optional.
There may well be truth in this association, which truth may extend to the so-termed "orthodox" also.

The idea of God(s) begetting God(s) in heaven is what fomented the Arian controversies, but I think my theory still accounts for the dropping of monogenes theos from the bible in large parts of Christendom at a very early stage, as a natural reaction to Valentinianism, which plainly corrupted monogenes theos into a rendition that was never intended (the Logos being begotten in heaven).

This was long before high Trinitarianism became the norm in the fourth century, and which led to the Johannine Comma, which was an attempt to re-insert "monogenes theos" back into the bible, but restricted this time to a heaven-only context and so as to include the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what a hapax legomenon is?
It refers to a term that is used only once in the Bible.
So you're saying that a Biblical author can't use a phrase only once in the Bible?
I think that's a very unreasonalble assumption.

But "monogenes" is a compound word, coming from "monos" (only) and "genos" (kind), so it plainly means, "unique", or "only of its kind". This is why it is translated as "only" when it's not describing the godhead (eg. Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38). And since it only refers to people, to understand it as "only begotten" seems redundant and awkward.

Further, the reason it was originally misconstrued as "only begotten" because it was originally assumed that it game from the term, "gennao" (to become), rather than "genos" ("kind"). So "begotten" is clearly a mistake.

I find it interesting that you prefer the rendering "the only begotten son of God". I find this to be problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, are you aware of any manuscripts which have the rendering, "monogenes uios theos"? If not, then you shouldn't translate it from a reading that doesn't exist. Better to translate it based on what's there, and interpret it after that (such as JW's taking Acts 20:28 and interpreting it as, "the church of God which He bought with the blood of his own [Son]". Of course, likewise Acts 20:28 doesn't read "son", and it shouldn't be interpreted in that way.

Further, if you want "theos" to be understood as possessive "theou" ("of God", or "God's"), then why wouldn't it be in the genitive case, as we see "son of God" elsewhere (Matt. 8:29, John 1:49, etc.)

I also find it curious that you want to interpret "monogenEs" as substantival. There is no reason to do that, unless for theological reasons you reject what the text otherwise says. We have "o monogenEs huios", where the adjective and noun match in gender, number, and case, so there is absolutely no reason not to interpret it as attributive.

There are a couple of textual criticism issues which I believe also support "only God" rather than "only son". The first is that all extant manuscripts from the first four centuries read either "monogenEs theos" or "ho monogenEs theos". The reading for "son" doesn't appear until the 5th century. And the earlier manuscriptures are more trustworthy, since the original text had to occur prior to the later reading.

The other issue is a principle repeated by many textual scholars, including Daniel Wallace, "Choose the reading that best explains the other variant readings". So here is the issue. Everyone knows that John loves using the expression, "monogenEs huios", it's going to sound somewhat odd to come across "monogenEs theos". A scribe might believe a previous scribe made an error, and so change it to "huios". Or if the scribe has been transcribing John's works for a while, he may have muscle memory to subconsciously change it to "huios". However, if the original reading was "huios", there's no reason to change it to "God". This is also an example of the principle that the harder expression is more likely to be the original, because a scribe is more likely to change a difficult reading into an easier one, than to change an easier reading into a more difficult one.
Monogenes Theos reading in John 1:18 is very correct. I teach diversification of the Oneness of God. A God Who can never be seen or approached has diversified Himself in a tangible form in order to interact with creation.

John 1:1c The Word was God.
 
But the issue is how monogenes theos became to be used by these much later writers. Was it used to refer to Jesus, or was it uses to refer to the Logos being begotten in heaven? (I assume the latter.)

So you are abandoning your false claim that “momogenes theos” disappeared.

Simple enough.

=========

To see how it was used, just quote a couple of dozen ECW sections.

Not for me, though, I don’t try to analyze the use of textual corruptions.
 
So you are abandoning your false claim that “momogenes theos” disappeared.
It disappeared from the bible;

Simple enough.

=========

To see how it was used, just quote a couple of dozen ECW sections.

Not for me, though, I don’t try to analyze the use of textual corruptions.
but as you point out, it found an alternative use by Trinitarians in their propagation of the high Trinity (God the Son etc) in later centuries (4th century onwards).

Seems that Trinitarians wanted to appropriate the term entirely for themselves, without the embarrassing context of John 1:18, which is talking about the human Son.
 
Back
Top