I just don't trust Erhman (the atheist). Apparently μονογενὴς θεὸς is found in the earliest papyri: P75 [175-225 C.E.] and P66 [150-200 C.E.] These papyri are massively important.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:
Just because, as I explained it is more Trinitarian than μονογενὴς θεὸς, in a perverse kind of way: in a similar way the invented Johannine Comma found its way into a huge number of Latin manuscipts.How do you explain that a forgery (apparently μονογενὴς υἱός) is found in the overwhelming majority of Greek texts, -- about 1630 manuscripts ?
I just don't trust Erhman (the atheist). Apparently μονογενὴς θεὸς is found in the earliest papyri: P75 [175-225 C.E.] and P66 [150-200 C.E.] These papyri are massively important.
Just because, as I explained it is more Trinitarian than μονογενὴς θεὸς, in a perverse kind of way: in a similar way the invented Johannine Comma found its way into a huge number of Latin manuscipts.
I am not Oneness as taught by UPC - neither I am a Modalist. I show distinction between The Father and The Son but not as Trinitarians or Unitarians. I am nolt hijacking the thread but show you through ancient manuscripts copies how YHWH manifested in flesh is The Son as a Soul being with His Body not from the dust of the earth.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."
Just as 'Kurios' which is a forgery. Little common sense need to be exercised by all of us. Why are there several schools of Theology in Christendom? It's because of this fraud of substitution. Let's see Who is Messiah according to Aramaic Peshitta:How do you explain that a forgery (apparently μονογενὴς υἱός) is found in the overwhelming majority of Greek texts, -- about 1630 manuscripts ?
Abbot is extremely confusing in interminably confounding Latin and Greek. Only Greek manuscripts are important, and in Greek, Origen says monogenes theos.You also had Origen above, however his text is quite unclear, and he would be an important Ante-Nicene reference not part of the Gnostic group..
This is gone into by Ezra Abbot in 1861 and then revisited, long after the writing from Hort:
The authorship of the Fourth Gospel
Ezra Abbot (1888)
And also, using the first writing from Abbot, James Drummond in 1871 in the Theological Review.
Ff you were a Greek scholar, you would know that this is rank disinformation.Not likely, even though he is in that Gnostic camp.
In fact, if anything he looks like a strong early evidence for the traditional text.
Jesus as Mirrored in John: The Genius in the New Testament (2018)
James H. Charlesworth
The passage that comes closest to implying Hercaleon thought he was commenting on “the Gospel of John” is in Fragment 3, which refers to what we call Jn 1:18. Heracleon wrote “The words, ‘No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known,’ were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple” but these words by Heracleon do not indicate that the Apostle John wrote the work in focus in the commentary. It means that Heracleon believes he is commentating on something apostolic.
In that the gnostics likely used μονογενὴς Θεὸς to distinguish the Father from the Son ontologically, it may well provide grounds for Trinitarians to reject μονογενὴς Θεὸς. Theodotus describes the gnostic process in the following words, "Through his own Thought as the one who knew himself, he (the Father) brought forth the spirit of knowledge, which is in knowledge, the Only-Begotten." (Excerpts of Theodotus 7:1).I don't think it is a serious assertion that μονογενὴς υἱός is "more Trinitarian" than μονογενὴς θεὸς.
Why does Raymond Brown's massive commentary on John's gospel acknowledge Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and the earliest Greek witnesses as all attesting monogenes theos (at p.17)?You are wrong,
I don't have any position on the Diatessaron: I was quoting someone else.and contradict your own position on the Diatessaron.
"We know, therefore, that He is the Son of God, and that God is His father. And there is nothing extravagant or unbecoming the character of God in the doctrine that He should have begotten such an only Son; and no one will persuade us that such a one is not a Son of the unbegotten God and Father."What does Origen have in Contra Celsum?
As far as I can make out, eternal generation and homoousios are just ways and means of introducing begotteness into the idea of the Logos being co-eternal with the Father and in the same form as the Father. So if one restricts begotteness to the human son, then one wouldn't need eternal generation or homoousios?eternal generation, supposing the Logos to have been begotten before all ages;.
Why does Raymond Brown's massive commentary on John's gospel acknowledge Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and the earliest Greek witnesses as all attesting monogenes theos (at p.17)?
You are wrong.