John 1:18

It's not eisegesis! The ancient manuscript copies show that. The modern manuscript copies are corrupt with Theological bias. 'Lord' replaced 'YHWH'; The Name 'Jesus' also is fake

The truth is 'YHWH' is both as Invisible Spirit/Father as well as 'Soul' being in form of Man.

The Monogenes is God as well as The Mediator by as The Son of God/Father

The firstborn son is Israel - Exod 4:22, Gal 4:1 (Israel as a child). The Monogenes Son represents Israel as the Firstborn Son. He also Mediates on behalf of Israel - Linked to Hos 11:1; Mat 2:15; Rom 8:29; Gal 4:4-5. Please read these linking scriptures.

This reading is sporadic except at Alexandria, which incidentally was home base to the "Marian cult." And even here some have "son." Furthermore "the church fathers" who were even more "ancient" usually have "son" rather than "god." Here is something worth reading:


Also, many scholars concur with Bart Ehrman that the textual evidence supports the word “Son,” not “God” in "John 1:18" . Although the reading theos (God) appears in the Alexandrian texts, which are earlier than the Western and Byzantine texts and therefore most often considered by scholars to represent the original reading in disputed verses, there are times when the Alexandrian readings are not original. Many factors must be considered. For one thing, the Alexandrian readings are earlier because they survived in the sands of Egypt, whereas the early Western texts disintegrated in the climate and thus had to be copied more often. So the older age of the Alexandrian manuscripts does not, in and of itself, make the Alexandrian manuscripts more accurate. Other things have to be considered. Besides that, there are some Alexandrian texts that do read “Son.” Also, if “God” were the original reading, it seems, especially given the desire among third-century Christians to support the Trinity, that the Western, Cesarean, and Byzantine text families would have more than a few manuscripts that read “God,” after all, that is what those theologians believed, but the reading “God” is almost totally absent from those text families. Bart Ehrman writes:

This is not simply a case of one reading supported by the earliest and best manuscripts and another supported by late and inferior one, but of one reading found almost exclusively in the Alexandrian tradition and another found sporadically there and virtually everywhere."
Furthermore, “Son” predominates not only in the Greek manuscripts, but in the Latin and Syriac (Aramaic) manuscripts as well, and also is predominant in the writings of the Church Fathers (although some have “God” as well).
 
The most "ancient" reading of John 1:18 at our disposal is from Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Syria, ca. 110, which has "monogenes son" because that is the ONLY translation he had . If there existed “only begotten god” translation during that time, I’m sure he would not have given a second thought to using that translation, for he was a proto-Trinitarian. Same is true with reference to Tertullian , etc.
 
".........especially given the desire among third-century Christians to support the Trinity,"
There was no Trinity as such in the 3rd century. The Synods of Antioch 264-269 rejected the homoousios formula. The Trinity didn't officially begin until Nicea, although it is found in Tertullian's Ad. Praxean in a primitive form.
 
The most "ancient" reading of John 1:18 at our disposal is from Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Syria, ca. 110, which has "monogenes son" because that is the ONLY translation he had . If there existed “only begotten god” translation during that time, I’m sure he would not have given a second thought to using that translation, for he was a proto-Trinitarian. Same is true with reference to Tertullian , etc.
Many of the letters of Ignatius are forged and so unreliable. We would have to know the criteria for considering whatever letter this appears in to be authentic.
 
This reading is sporadic except at Alexandria, which incidentally was home base to the "Marian cult." And even here some have "son." Furthermore "the church fathers" who were even more "ancient" usually have "son" rather than "god." Here is something worth reading:
Are u an Unitarian? John Ch 1 is exclusively all about the Divinity of Messiah. Arisamaic Peshitta is older than your modern copies of the manuscripts which says He is The Only Begotten God.

The problem you don't understand is that God Who is invisible has made Himself compatible to be face to face with creation. In His substance, He is unknown and He has transcripted Himself into a Bodily form of a Man in Whose image Adam was created. Adam is God's highest creation (especially glorified mankind) above Angelic beings. It was pre-planned by God by transcripting Himself in form of Man in prophetic scriptures before Adam was created. Without Christ Whom we know in the NT, creation has no meaning for all things were created through Him and for Him as Apostle Paul writes in Col ch 1.

God was not known but in all Anthromorphism of the OT and His Theophanic appearances in Man's form.

Yahusha Messiah is Yahuah manifested in flesh as the ancient manuscript copies reveal while your modern manuscripts will lead you in confusion.

Yahuah is both Spirit as The Father as well as a Soul being of Yahusha Messiah without being two Persons.

FYI, God is transitioning Himself from being invisible Spirit through His Mediatorship of The Son to be Permanently visible in a Tabernacle/Body in the age to come. Isaiah 9:6 says The Son given to us will be called The Father of eternity which will be fulfilled in Rev 21: 3-7.

3 I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look, the tabernacle of God is with humans, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.

7 He who overcomes, I will give him these things. I will be his God, and he will be my son.

No Biblical language or grammar lessons can ever lead anyone to the truth but it's the language of Ruach will lead us to the truth.

We must connect all dots but exegesis and eisegesis are made by man.
 
In his Commentary on John, 2:29, Origen (184-253) makes a clear utilization of John 1:18 with ὁ μονογενὴς θεός.
FYI, God is transitioning Himself from being invisible Spirit through His Mediatorship of The Son to be Permanently visible in a Tabernacle/Body in the age to come. Isaiah 9:6 says The Son given to us will be called The Father of eternity which will be fulfilled in Rev 21: 3-7.
This thread must not be hijacked by the oneness cult. The Father and the Son are and remain always distinct: 1 Cor 1:15. Please take your oneness teachings elsewhere. There is nothing in "monogenes theos" that supports oneness, because theos is without the article. Without the article, theos can be applied to a range of beings from the Father, to the Son to other men "to whom the word of God came."
 
What is very interesting is Origen's third century (AD226-229) commentary on John. In Book II, Para. 29, he quotes John 1:18 using "monogenes theos," but in book II, Para. 8, Origen alludes to the "unbegotten God." Also the same phrase is used in his Contra Celsum Book VIII. This is ample testimony that "monogenes theos" was not read in a trinitarian sense to mean "Begotten God," as "God" cannot be both unbegotten and begotten.
 
Last edited:
In his Commentary on John, 2:29, Origen (184-253) makes a clear utilization of John 1:18 with ὁ μονογενὴς θεός.

This thread must not be hijacked by the oneness cult. The Father and the Son are and remain always distinct: 1 Cor 1:15. Please take your oneness teachings elsewhere. There is nothing in "monogenes theos" that supports oneness, because theos is without the article. Without the article, theos can be applied to a range of beings from the Father, to the Son to other men "to whom the word of God came."
Meant 1 Cor 15, not 1 Cor 1:15
 
Many of the letters of Ignatius are forged and so unreliable. We would have to know the criteria for considering whatever letter this appears in to be authentic.
Not sure how the historically numerically (and politically) inferior Unitarians would have had the means to "forge" John 1:18 in their direction (to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός) in the writings of Ignatius. The corruption of Scripture invariably came from the other direction, by the orthodox, or as Ehrman calls them, from the "proto-orthodox."

That Ignatius and a number of other very early (2nd and 3rd century) Trinitarian friendly "Church fathers" have μονογενὴς υἱός instead of μονογενὴς θεὸς is in fact strong evidence that the former is genuine and the latter an orthodox corruption. Are you arguing that all of these examples are forgeries ?
 
There was no Trinity as such in the 3rd century. The Synods of Antioch 264-269 rejected the homoousios formula. The Trinity didn't officially begin until Nicea, although it is found in Tertullian's Ad. Praxean in a primitive form.

That is one of my points. These "church fathers" were proto-Trinitarians. So they would have preferred μονογενὴς θεὸς over μονογενὴς υἱός. But why do we find μονογενὴς υἱός in their writings ?
 
That is one of my points. These "church fathers" were proto-Trinitarians. So they would have preferred μονογενὴς θεὸς over μονογενὴς υἱός. But why do we find μονογενὴς υἱός in their writings ?
I think one of the issues is that the article started appearing before μονογενὴς θεὸς, which imputed an inadmissible and heretical meaning, as Hort says. To curtail this heretical rendering, the υἱός option was adopted as standard.
 
Not sure how the historically numerically (and politically) inferior Unitarians would have had the means to "forge" John 1:18 in their direction (to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός) in the writings of Ignatius. The corruption of Scripture invariably came from the other direction, by the orthodox, or as Ehrman calls them, from the "proto-orthodox."

That Ignatius and a number of other very early (2nd and 3rd century) Trinitarian friendly "Church fathers" have μονογενὴς υἱός instead of μονογενὴς θεὸς is in fact strong evidence that the former is genuine and the latter an orthodox corruption. Are you arguing that all of these examples are forgeries ?
I don't have any strong views on what was the original rendering, but I am inclined not to discount μονογενὴς θεὸς as original, despite what Ehrman says. For it is all speculation on his part (he's very adept at confounding his own speculation for facts). Rather I find this article (NTTC JOHN 1:18: “only begotten God” OR “only begotten Son”) to be more helpful. It also suggests that theological chaos occurred when the article began to be inserted in front of μονογενὴς θεὸς (which I do see as a later Trinitarian textual corruption).

As I said, I wouldn't rely on Ignatius for anything, unless you are quoting directly from his Syriac letters: his Western letters have long been condemned as forgeries from Calvin onwards, which forgeries the Catholics used to bolster the supremacy of the Roman Church.

Iranaeus Against Heresies is more interesting, but more complicated because of the multi-lingual nature of the extant earliest texts (Syriac, Greek and Latin). A Greek text however exists for Book 1, Chp. 8, Para. 4:

"Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,-that, namely, which was [76-77] first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things."

The Greek of this is interesting (see the link) as it shows "and God" is without the Greek article, such that there is no confusion with the Father (o θεὸς). This would suggest
μονογενὴς θεὸς
is read as "only-begotten Son and [anarthrous] God"; and which could reflect "μονογενὴς θεὸς" in John 1:18.

In book III, Ch 2, Para. 6 there is what seems to be a quotation from Jn 1:18, but it is an amended quotation: "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]". From what I can make out it does not appear to be based on a Greek original text (possibly Syriac). It's authority is therefore moot, but again, it may well be a paraphrase of μονογενὴς θεὸς.
 
Last edited:
In addition, the following extra-biblical writings are found in support of (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς:

the Diatessaron, the Valentinians (according to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria), Ptolemy, Heracleon, Origen, Arius (according to Epiphanius and Theodoret of Cyrus), the Apostolic Constitutions, Didymus, Pseudo-Ignatius, Synesius (according to Epiphanius), Cyril of Alexandria, Theodotus (according to Clement of Alexandria), Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Epiphanius.

[source]

It seems to me that the phrase μονογενὴς θεὸς should be read as an anti-soccinian remark, but not necessarily as a Trinitarian insertion. For, in a very subtle argument, the Trinitarian votaries of the Textus Receptus reject μονογενὴς θεὸς just because it is seen as anti-Trinitarian.

For the Trinitarian contention is that "the Son is [the] God" and that "The Word is the Son." Thus they advance that that the phrase "No one has ever seen God, but ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός who is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known" is more Trinitarian than μονογενὴς θεὸς, just because ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός infers the Logos to be also the Son in John 1:18, which is a Trinitarian concept.

Yet I find this contention to be fanciful, because it's not obvious that the one "who is in closest relationship with the Father" is the Word (rather than Jesus). I find this argument to be strange, because I had always assumed that the one "[who] has made him known" was Jesus, not the Word.

However what may be a better point for Trinitarians is this: I do see that Trinitarians are never going to be happy with Jesus being classed as "μονογενὴς θεὸς" in place of "o θεὸς". So they would rather he be classed as o μονογενὴς υἱός, so as not to dinmish his θεὸς,standing. Perhaps this is the real issue: John 1:18 denies the title o θεὸς to Jesus, by substituting "o" with μονογενὴς, and it is this substitution which is seen to unequivocally repudiate Trinitarianism.
 
Last edited:
In addition, the following extra-biblical writings are found in support of (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς:

the Diatessaron, ...

[source]

Nope.

TATIAN’S CHRISTOLOGY AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE DIATESSARON – Peter M. Head
https://syriacstudies.com/2013/12/3...-composition-of-the-diatessaron-peter-m-head/

5. Some Uncertain Passages

If we survey the Diatessaron for indications of possible christological influences on the redactional process we are faced with a complex situation.[50] There are several places where some versions of the Diatessaron offer interesting christological readings, but uncertainty concerning either the original text or Tatian’s reading makes it difficult to decide exactly who has changed what.

One example of this complex situation is the text which parallels John 1:18 (the original of which is uncertain):

Ephraem (I.2): ‘only-begotten’[51]
Arabic (4.1): ‘only-begotten God’[52]
Dutch (ch 21) & Persian (I.17): ‘only begotten Son’[53]

[50]Hill, Diatessaron, 292-317 has a very useful list of the passages in which the Arabic version differs from the canonical gospels, we have culled variants from this list and compared the other versions.

[51]Leloir, Commentaire, 43: ‘le Fils unique’; Leloir, Syriaque, 3: ‘unigenitus’, so also in Leloir, Arménienne, II, 2; Hill, Dissertation, 80.

[52]Marmadji, 30f.

[53]Liège, 41; Messina, 36f. SyrC supports ‘only-begotten Son’ at Jn. 1:18; the Peshitta supports ‘only-begotten God’.
 
I think one of the issues is that the article started appearing before μονογενὴς θεὸς, which imputed an inadmissible and heretical meaning, as Hort says. To curtail this heretical rendering, the υἱός option was adopted as standard.
So you think there was a concerted effort spanning generations and diverse geographical regions to try to everywhere erase the μονογενὴς θεὸς reading because an article started appearing before this read ? Incidentally , (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς would not be inconsistent with Trinitarianism or even with Sabellianism, only with Unitarianism. It would rather lend credence to these first two mentioned doctrines.
 
Question: If μονογενὴς θεὸς is original, what accounts for μονογενὴς υἱός's ubiquitousness everywhere where manuscripts are found, even in Alexandria?
 
Last edited:
So you think there was a concerted effort spanning generations and diverse geographical regions to try to everywhere erase the μονογενὴς θεὸς reading because an article started appearing before this read ? Incidentally , (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς would not be inconsistent with Trinitarianism or even with Sabellianism, only with Unitarianism. It would rather lend credence to these first two mentioned doctrines.
All I know is that there was a concerned effort to use "o μονογενὴς υἱός". I don't know a lot about the history of this, or the reasons for it. I'll try and look into this.

μονογενὴς θεὸς is inconsistent with Trinitarianism, because Trinitarianism requires the Word & Jesus to have an identical "theos" status as the Father. By noticably omitting the article, the μονογενὴς (only begotten son ) is deprived of that status (as indeed also in Jn 1:1c). This is also the point Hort makes: i.e. to have inserted the article would have confounded Jesus's title with that of the Father: it would have been a very Trinitarian thing to do, which is why it likely happened in some later manuscripts. Because μονογενὴς refers to a human being, I don't see it as legitimately bearing the meaning "only begotten God" which is IMO erroneously used of μονογενὴς θεὸς by some English translators.

But I can also see why o μονογενὴς υἱός might be preferred, just because it appears elsewhere in John, and because it makes it seem as if the Son is the Logos, from "who is in the bosom of the Father...." , which is also a Trinitarian slant.

But due to John 10:34-36 especially, as I said earlier, I can see no scriptural reason for objecting to anarthrous "μονογενὴς θεὸς" where θεὸς is reflecting the divine origin of the μονογενὴς, and his status as possessed of the word of God; and this is still not a Trinitarian slant due to the aforesaid reasons. I can see Erhman's grammatical reason for objecting to μονογενὴς θεὸς, but because people like Origen accepted it, I'm not sure it has any material validity.

Your usage of Unitarian I think is confined to "Socinian". For there are those "Unitarians" who acknowledge the Logos as pre-existing, divine and in the form of God, but just not bearing the Father's title of "o θεὸς." Certainly the 19th century tendency was to identify Socinians as Socinians, and not as Unitarians, due to this important distinction. May be you see Unitarian meaning Socinian today?
 
Last edited:
All I know is that there was a concerned effort to use "o μονογενὴς υἱός". I don't know a lot about the history of this, or the reasons for it. I'll try and look into this.

μονογενὴς θεὸς is inconsistent with Trinitarianism, because Trinitarianism requires the Word & Jesus to have an identical "theos" status as the Father. By omitting the article, the μονογενὴς is deprived of that status (as indeed also in Jn 1:1c). This is also the point Hort makes: i.e. to have inserted the article would have confounded Jesus's title with that of the Father: it would have been a very Trinitarian thing to do, which is why it likely happened.

But I can also see why o μονογενὴς υἱός might be preferred, just because it appears elsewhere in John, and because it makes it seem as if the Son is the Logos, from "who is in the bosom of the Father...." , which is also a Trinitarian slant.

But due to John 10:34-36 especially, as I said earlier, I can see no scriptural reason for objecting to anarthrous "μονογενὴς θεὸς" where θεὸς is reflecting the divine origin of the μονογενὴς, and his status as possessed of the word of God.
So "all you know" is that there was a concerted effort everywhere to change μονογενὴς θεὸς to μονογενὴς υἱός but you can't explain why , how or by whom.

Doesn't it make more sense to think that μονογενὴς υἱός is original because it is found everywhere, and even in the earliest "church fathers" ? As Ehrman put it:

This is not simply a case of one reading supported by the earliest and best manuscripts and another supported by late and inferior one, but of one reading found almost exclusively in the Alexandrian tradition and another found sporadically there and virtually everywhere."
 
Nope.

TATIAN’S CHRISTOLOGY AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE DIATESSARON – Peter M. Head
https://syriacstudies.com/2013/12/3...-composition-of-the-diatessaron-peter-m-head/

5. Some Uncertain Passages

If we survey the Diatessaron for indications of possible christological influences on the redactional process we are faced with a complex situation.[50] There are several places where some versions of the Diatessaron offer interesting christological readings, but uncertainty concerning either the original text or Tatian’s reading makes it difficult to decide exactly who has changed what.

One example of this complex situation is the text which parallels John 1:18 (the original of which is uncertain):

Ephraem (I.2): ‘only-begotten’[51]
Arabic (4.1): ‘only-begotten God’[52]
Dutch (ch 21) & Persian (I.17): ‘only begotten Son’[53]

[50]Hill, Diatessaron, 292-317 has a very useful list of the passages in which the Arabic version differs from the canonical gospels, we have culled variants from this list and compared the other versions.

[51]Leloir, Commentaire, 43: ‘le Fils unique’; Leloir, Syriaque, 3: ‘unigenitus’, so also in Leloir, Arménienne, II, 2; Hill, Dissertation, 80.

[52]Marmadji, 30f.

[53]Liège, 41; Messina, 36f. SyrC supports ‘only-begotten Son’ at Jn. 1:18; the Peshitta supports ‘only-begotten God’.
In other languages it just becomes a mess.
 
Back
Top