I find this really strange. Of course only Greek witnesses count, because translations cannot be trusted with such Graecisms as "monogenes theos".
John 1:18
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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:
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.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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.
This is the position.
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:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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)"