John 1:18

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:
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.

How do you explain that a forgery (apparently μονογενὴς υἱός) is found in the overwhelming majority of Greek texts, -- about 1630 manuscripts ?
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 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.

All that proves is that μονογενὴς θεὸς was / could have been an early corruption, it does not prove that it is the original reading.


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 don't think it is a serious assertion that μονογενὴς υἱός is "more Trinitarian" than μονογενὴς θεὸς.
 
In addition, the following extra-biblical writings are found in support of (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς:
Origen
[source]

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)
https://books.google.com/books?id=MZcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA279

And also, using the first writing from Abbot, James Drummond in 1871 in the Theological Review.
 
Last edited:
In other languages it just becomes a mess.

There is no one language for the Diatessaron that is the master that makes the rules, and there is no Syriac manuscript extant. Very little in Greek, one fragment, that is not a help here.
 
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."
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.

How would you with present Greek manuscripts determine who YHWH with generic 'Kurios' and fake name 'Jesus'? How would you properly come to the truth of correct Theology/Christology?

Have you heard of nomina sacra?

 
In addition, the following extra-biblical writings are found in support of (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς:
Heracleon,
[source]

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
https://books.google.com/books?id=NBB-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA520

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.
 
Last edited:
How do you explain that a forgery (apparently μονογενὴς υἱός) is found in the overwhelming majority of Greek texts, -- about 1630 manuscripts ?
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:

Luke 2:

ܐܬܝܠܕ ܠܟܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܝܘܡܢܐ ܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܪܝܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܒܡܕܝܢܬܗ ܕܕܘܝܕ
11 For, unto you is born yawmana {today}, in The Madintheh d’Dawiyd {The City of David}, The Pharuqa {The Saviour/The Deliverer}, who is MarYa Meshikha {The Lord-YHWH, The Anointed One}.

How is He both YHWH as well as The Anointed One?

We have to go to Mat 22:

ܘܐܡܪ ܡܢܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܥܠ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܒܪ ܡܢܘ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܗ ܒܪ ܕܘܝܕ
42 and said, “What do you say about Meshikha {The Anointed One}? Whose Son is He?” They were saying unto Him, “The Son of David.”

ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܘܝܕ ܒܪܘܚ ܩܪܐ ܠܗ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܡܪ ܓܝܪ
43 He said unto them, “And how does David, through The Spirit, call Him 'MarYa {The Lord-YHWH}?' For, he said

ܕܐܡܪ ܡܪܝܐ ܠܡܪܝ ܕܬܒ ܠܟ ܡܢ ܝܡܝܢܝ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܐܣܝܡ ܒܥܠܕܒܒܝܟ ܬܚܝܬ ܪܓܠܝܟ
44 that ‘MarYa {The Lord-YHWH} said unto Mari {My Lord}, that You must sit at My right, until I place Your enemies under Your feet.’”

ܐܢ ܗܟܝܠ ܕܘܝܕ ܩܪܐ ܠܗ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܒܪܗ ܗܘ
45 If therefore, David calls Him MarYa {The Lord-YHWH}, how is He his Son?

It shows clearly YHWH Himself is The Mediator on the Right Hand as a Soul being while YHWH still is a Spirit Being.

Psalms 110 is a prophetic Psalm. David was still in the grave when The Messiah Sorang from the Tribe of Judah. He is The Son of David according to the legality of the Torah and not a Biological son. That's why His birth was Supernatural.

Not only that, there are several other scriptures which points to this.

According to Phil 2:5-7, He being in the form of God was equal WITH God ( YHWH as Soul being is equal WITH YHWH as invisible Spirit) but for a while He didn't hold on to His reputation of being equal with God.

How clearer it can be?

Therefore, John 1:18 in its context has to be Monogenes Theos - even Aramaic Peshitta translates this as.
 
In addition, the following extra-biblical writings are found in support of (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς:
Pseudo-Ignatius
[source]

Looks like it might reference the Epistle to the Philippians, which is clearly a reference to the verse and is in the Pseudo category, and/or Philadelphians, which is not in the context of a verse reference and is not considered Pseudo.

Covered by

The Theological Review, Volume 8 (1871)
James Drummond
https://books.google.com/books?id=atYtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA475

So another mis-reference.
 
In addition, the following extra-biblical writings are found in support of (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς:
Eusebius,
[source]

See the James Drummond reference above and go to p. 480-482.

Ezra Abbot above in 1888 p. 258-259.

Again, not a support of the only begotten God corruption in John 1:18. And I originally included Eusebius as only-begotten Son on the first page (six times) however, it might need more explanation when I start adding the new information.

Perhaps the idea is Eusebius of Nicomedia, who has a letter from Arius, but that is an Arius reference.
 
Last edited:
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)
https://books.google.com/books?id=MZcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA279

And also, using the first writing from Abbot, James Drummond in 1871 in the Theological Review.
Abbot is extremely confusing in interminably confounding Latin and Greek. Only Greek manuscripts are important, and in Greek, Origen says monogenes theos.
 
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
https://books.google.com/books?id=NBB-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA520

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.
Ff you were a Greek scholar, you would know that this is rank disinformation.

From "The Fragments of Heracleon by A E Brooke", 1891, p.54-55

"καί ληγούσης εἰς τὸ μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο."

Trans: "and ends in, μονογενὴς Θεὸς which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Wiki: Heracleon was a Gnostic who flourished about AD 175, probably in the south of Italy. He is described by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9) as the most esteemed (δοκιμώτατος) of the school of Valentinus; and, according to Origen (Comm. in S. Joann. t. ii. § 8, Opp. t. iv. p. 66), said to have been in personal contact (γνώριμος) with Valentinus himself.

I don't see that being a "gnostic" invalidates his record.

I don't think it is a serious assertion that μονογενὴς υἱός is "more Trinitarian" than μονογενὴς θεὸς.
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).

This was offensive to High Trinitarians, and made more offensive in that later it became also embraced by the Arians (those who maintained the Word has a beginning).

Thus persistent misuse of μονογενὴς Θεὸς was likely one of the reasons why the Trinitarians ditched μονογενὴς Θεὸς. However as far as I can tell, μονογενὴς Θεὸς has no gnostic/Arian connotations as μονογενὴς must refer to Jesus, the man (and not the Word in heaven). Thus gnostic/Arian connotations are merely impermissible superimposition.
 
Last edited:
Per A.E. Brooke, the Valentinians generally deduced from the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel the origin of the Pleroma and its inhabitants. Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius is dated c. AD 100 – c. 180). Valentinus therefore attests a reading of monogenes theos going back to the life of Valentinus (140AD or before).

Excerpta ex Theodoto (Gnostic archive)

§6
The verse, “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God” the Valentinians understand thus, for they say that the “beginning” is the “Only Begotten” and that he is also called God, as also in the verses which immediately follow it explains that he is God, for it says, “The Only-Begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” Now they say that the Logos in the beginning, that is to say in the Only-Begotten, in the Mind and the Truth, indicates the Christ, the Logos and the Life. Wherefore he also appropriately calls God him who is in God, the Mind. “That which came into being in him,” the Logos, “was Life,” the Companion. Therefore the Lord also says, “I am the Life.”

§7 Therefore, the Father, being unknown, wished to be known to the Aeons, and through his own thought, as if he had known himself, he put forth the Only-Begotten, the spirit of Knowledge which is in Knowledge. So he too who came forth from Know ledge, that is, from the Father's Thought, became Knowledge, that is, the Son, because “through' the Son the Father was known.” But the Spirit of Love has been mingled with the Spirit of Knowledge, as the Father with the Son, and Thought with Truth, having proceeded from Truth as Knowledge from Thought. And he who remained “ Only-Begotten Son in the bosom of the Father” explains Thought to the Aeons through Knowledge, just as if he had also been put forth from his bosom; but him who appeared here, the Apostle no longer calls “ Only Begotten,” but “ as Only-Begotten,” “Glory as of an Only-Begotten” (John 1:14). This is because being one and the same, Jesus is the” First-Born” in creation, but in the Pleroma is “Only- Begotten.” But he is the same, being to each place such as can be contained [in it]. And he who descended is never divided from him who remained. For the Apostle says, “For he who ascended is the same as he who descended.” And they call the Creator, the image of the Only-Begotten. Therefore even the works of the image are the same and therefore the Lord, having made the dead whom he raised an image of the spiritual resurrection, raised them not so that their flesh was incorruptible but as if they were going to die again.

§8 But we maintain that the essential Logos is God in God, who is also said to be “in the bosom of the Father,” continuous, undivided, one God.

“All things were made by him”; things both of the spirit, and of the mind, and of the senses, in accordance with the activity proper to the essential Logos. “This one explained the bosom of the Father,” the Saviour and [Isaiah said, “And I will pay back their deeds into their bosom,” that is, into their thought, which is in the soul, from which it is first activated] “First-Born of all creation.” But the essential Only-Begotten, in accordance with whose continuous power the Saviour acts, is the Light of the Church, which previously was in darkness and ignorance.

“And darkness comprehended him not”: the apostates and the rest of men did not know him and death did not detain him.
 
Last edited:
Abbot is extremely confusing in interminably confounding Latin and Greek. Only Greek manuscripts are important, and in Greek, Origen says monogenes theos.

You are wrong, and contradict your own position on the Diatessaron.

What does Origen have in Contra Celsum?
 
You are wrong,
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.

and contradict your own position on the Diatessaron.
I don't have any position on the Diatessaron: I was quoting someone else.

What does Origen have in Contra Celsum?
"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."

"In all those, then, who plant and cultivate within their souls, according to the divine word, temperance, justice, wisdom, piety, and other virtues, these excellences are their statues they raise, in which we are persuaded that it is becoming for us to honour the model and prototype of all statues: the image of the invisible God, God the Only-begotten."

Contra Celsum, Book VIII​

 
Further Info from Mary Shorter, LIGHT ON monogenes (ONLY-BEGOTTEN) IN THE JOHANNINE PROLOGUE, HeyJ XLIX (2008), pp. 283–291

[extracts]

1) monogenes theos

This is the reading of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, the Paris Palimpsest, the
Egyptian versions, the Peshitto and of p66 and p75. It is also supported by Valentinus
the Gnostic, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa and
Cyril and is probably an early Alexandrine reading.

2) monogenes huios

This is the reading of most Latin manuscripts, the Curetonian Syriac and all the
later Greek manuscripts. It is supported by Athanasius, Eusebius, most Greek
Fathers after the fourth century and by all the Latin Fathers apart from the author of
the treatise on Is.6,1-7. Irenaeus knew both readings.(Adv. Haer.i 8,5; iv 20, 6 and
20,11).

Numerous manuscripts add the article.

The reading monogenes alone is supported by two manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, the old Syriac and Tatian’s
Diatessaron and was known to Cyril, Jerome, Nonnus and Nestor.
.
.
.
.
Barnabas Lindars (The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972) pp. 98–9) discusses
the readings in some detail and concludes ‘. . . the more difficult reading . . . ‘‘the only
begotten one, God, who is in the bosom of the Father’’ has much too strong MS attestation
to be set aside. . . . . It can be accepted if ‘‘God’’ is taken to be in apposition to
‘‘only begotten one’’, meaning ‘‘who is divine in origin’’ (so Bernard, Schnackenburg) . . . .
The harder reading has the merit of bringing the thought back to verse I, and so
constitutes another case of the Johannine inclusion. ‘‘God’’ here has the same meaning as
‘‘and the word was God’’ (1C). The point is that only God can reveal God. This is fundamental to the thought of the
Prologue’.
 
[Re Tertullian and Asterius the Arian theologian, from Cappadocia (died c. 341)]

This text shows that the Arians made good use of monogenes theos in John 1:18.

"John i. 18 had been included in Tertullian's catena of passages against Praxeas to emphasise the difference between the revealer and the one revealed [which later drew the anathema of the Roman Catholics], but in the hands of Asterius this difference was so radically drawn that he could even be accused of falsifying the text to suit his purpose, although the reading which he employed was the one which had been regularly known in earlier centuries to Irenaeus, Clement and Origen." G. Bardy, Recherches. . . p. 330.

"The originality of the reading theos rather than huios is defended by Westcott, Additional Note on John i. 18 (vol. 1, pp. 66-8) and by Hort (Two Dissertations, pp. 1-72). Although vios is preferred by Hoskyns (p. 154), by Barrett (p. 141), and by Lightfoot (p. 90) on the ground of its greater
suitability to the context, yet the combination of the early evidence for theos and a strong doctrinal reason for the change away from it represent a very strong case in favour of that reading and it ought probably to be accepted. Barrett {Exp. T. (March 1957), pp. 174-7) points out that it has recently acquired the additional support of p66, and thinks that this ought perhaps to sway the balance of judgment in favour of the reading. In any event the usage of Irenaeus, Clement and Origen is in itself sufficient refutation of the charge against Asterius." [note 2, p.121 - infra]

"It would be a mistake to regard Arianism as based on nothing
more than the forced interpretation of a few isolated texts. It had
a far broader exegetical basis than any of the earlier heresies. Its
appeal to the Fourth Gospel was a considerable and not unreasonable
one. In large measure it built upon the foundation of the antimonarchian
writers of the previous century. Tertullian had appealed
to those texts which spoke of the Father's giving of authority to the
Son as evidence of the Son's distinct existence; these same texts were
used by the Arians to illustrate his inferiority to the Father.
Tertullian had put to the same use those texts which spoke of his
being sent by the Father; these too were turned to the Arian purpose."

[p.121, THE SPIRITUAL GOSPEL - THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL IN THE EARLY CHURCH, MAURICE F. WILES, 1960]
 
Asterius of Cappadocia (the Arian Theologian). ("The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, The Arian Controversy 318-381," R. P. C. Hanson)

"Asterius was a sophist, i.e. he combined the roles
which today would be occupied by the theologian, the scientist, the
journalist and the advertising agency. During the persecution of
Diocletian he had apostasized from the Christian faith by sacrificing
to some pagan god (so that Athanasius usually refers to him as 'the Quisling'),
and in consequence he was never ordained
either presbyter or bishop. He had returned to the Christian church,
had studied under the martyr Lucian of Antioch and when the
controversy broke out was regarded as a leading theologian. Some
time before the Council of Nicaea he wrote a Syntagmation in defence
of Arius; he also at some point wrote a work defending Paulinus of
Tyre for the letter to Alexander of Alexandria which Paulinus wrote
(as we have seen) at the instigation of Eusebius of Nicomedia on
behalf of Arius. Fragments of this work have survived quoted by
Eusebius of Caesarea from the quotations of the same work by
Marcellus of Ancyra (who was attacking Asterius and whom
Eusebius was in his tum attacking). Some further fragments from
Asterius can he gleaned from quotations of him in the works of
Athanasius. who of course is quoting him in order to refute him, and
several Homilies on the Psalms which can safely be ascribed to Asterius
have quite recently been edited in the original Greek by Richard. "

"The fragments of Asterius have been conveniently collected by
Bardy, Gustave, 1881-1955, in "Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son ecole,"
Paris : G. Beauchesne, 1936 viii, 378 p. ; 24 cm."

Fragment XX (65)

"Asterius declared his belief in God the Father Almighty and in his
Son the only begotten God our Lord Jesus Christ
, and in the Holy
Spirit, and that the Father must truly be Father and the
Son truly Son and the Holy Spirit similarly."

Fragment XXI (96)

The Father is distinct , who begot from himself the only begotten
Logos
and first born of all creation, sole (begetting) the
sole, perfect the perfect, King the King, Lord the Lord, God
(begetting) God, the exact image of his substance and will and
glory and power.

Fragment XXIII (18)

The Logos was produced before the ages.

______________________________

Re Fragment XXI: NOT that I credit this Arian nonsense about God begetting the Logos in heaven. This is reproduced to show that the Arians followed the monogenes theos rendition of John 1:18, and which presumably made monogenes theos anathema to Trinitarians, who were engaged in a similar error of eternal generation, supposing the Logos to have been begotten before all ages; but which might explain why the Trinitarians unanimously adopted o monogenes huios instead of monogenes theos (just to distinguish themselves from the Arians).
 
eternal generation, supposing the Logos to have been begotten before all ages;.
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?

The idea of the Logos being begotten in heaven was also the foundation of the theories of Valentinus the gnostic, which is another reason to reject it. Surely if the Logos itself has been begotten, the concept would have appeared in Jn 1:1, and not awaited till John 1:18.

So I find this complex (non-biblical) language of eternal generation and homoousios predicated on the concept of the Logos being begotten of the Father in heaven, which may just be a gnostic diversion and not inherent in John's gospel. It is worth studying the arguments of Bishop Alexander, the principal initial opponent of Arius, yet who never seems to have reflected that monogenes in the gospel of John might be intended only as a denotation of the human son rather than the Logos; and which would have been a far more effective way of opposing the contentions of Arius.

Alexander refrains from technical terms like homoousios and eternal generation, although both are clearly implied by his acceptance that it is the Logos who is begotten and "not ingenerate as the Father is."

"Alexander invokes Isaiah 53:8 ('his generation who shall​
declare?'), a text which was destined to be constantly quoted by​
people of different points of view during the controversy. He​
points out how inconsistent it is to say that the Son was created before​
times and yet to assert that there was a time when he did not exist; the​
Son himself created time and times. And he goes on to assert​
roundly the [co-eternality] of the Son.​
"the Father exists for ever in the presence of the Son, which is why he is​
called "Father". In the eternal presence of the Son with him, the​
Father exists perfectly, needing no supplement in goodness, having
.begotten (aorist tense) the only-begotten Son not in time nor after an
interval nor from non-existence."
"All Alexander's arguments tend to demonstrate the Son's inalienable​
and natural (not adoptive) Sonship. When Christ said "I and the​
Father are one" (In 10:30) he did not call himself the Father nor​
explain that natures, which were two in hypostasis, were one, and a​
little later he describes Christ as 'bearing as an impression of his (the Father's)​
likeness in everything and being the exact image of the Father and​
the impression corresponding to the prototype'. He indignantly​
repudiates the argument that in rejecting the idea that the Son was​
made out of non-existence he is teaching two ultimate principles. The​
Son has a 'mediating only-begotten nature through which the Father made all things.​

"Alexander next gives a Rule of Faith covering the doctrine of the​
Son's relation to the Father some of which must be reproduced​
here:​
'A single ingenerate (i.e. not generated) Father having no origin of his​
existence, admitting neither increase nor reduction. giver of Law and​
prophets and gospels, Lord of patriarchs and apostles and all holy​
people. and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,​
begotten not from non-existence but from the existing Father, not in​
ways resembling bodies by cutting or by issues arising from divisions,​
as Sabellius and Valentinus think, but unspeakably and indescribably​
[reference to lsa. 53:8] ... since his hypostasis is beyond investigation​
by any mortal nature, just as the Father is beyond investigation because​
the nature of rational beings cannot cope with the knowledge of the​
Father's divine begetting [reference to Matt. 11:27] ... and we have learnt this​
Jesus Christ) to be unchangeable and unalterable as the Father is, a​
Son without want and perfect, like the Father, only inferior to him in the point
of ingenerateness, for he is the precise and exact image of the Father​
for it is clear that the image is full of all the elements in which the likeness​
to the greater (lit. "the greater likeness" (consists) [with a quotation ofJn.​
I4:28].​
There follows a long digression in which Alexander makes it as​
plain as he can that in refusing any time to the origin of the Son he has
no intention of declaring that the Son is ingenerate as the Father is. He​
goes on to say'· that we pay proper honour to the Father in asserting​
that he has no origin nor cause, and due honour to the Son 'when we​
ascribe to him the unbeginning birth from the Father', and we do not​
thereby deny his Godhead nor extend ingenerateness to him from the Father.​
[Alexander's letter to Alexander of Thessalonica - "Arian Controversy 318-381" RPC Hanson, p.142-144.​
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
Back
Top