John 1:18

cjab

Well-known member
Jn 1:18 (KJV) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
which follows the Byzantine Majority Text: "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο"

However, re Jn 1:18, it is well known that "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" supplants "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός" in the early Bible Codices: א B C L, the Version of Lower Egypt and Peshito Syriac, in the Valentinian Gnostics (circa 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Didymus, and some others, and is favored by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Revisers (margin).

Whereas "μονογενής υιός" occurs in the later versions: A (Byzantine Gospels), X, etc., Latin Versions, Old Syriac, Eusebius, Athanasius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom and others, and is favored by Lachmann (text), Tischendorf, Alford, McClellan, Scrivener, Revisers (text).

Most scholars now seem to prefer "μονογενής υιός" (KJV - Byzantine) as the safest rendition, even though the authoritative early uncials suggest "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" should be the preferred rendition.

The question is this: does a translation of "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" (no article) exist that will stand the test of orthodoxy and allow the early uncial codices to retain their pre-eminence over the later Byzantine reading, which many accept is a recension (especially Hort - see "Two Dissertations")?

Mooted translations that are unacceptable are any and all polytheistic translations that appear to set up another God to rival the Father, e,.g. such as "only begotten God."

The solution may however be straightforward, given this very important point: μονογενὴς without υιός can and must stand on its own as a substantive in its own right. Where υιός is not appended to μονογενὴς in other places in the gospels, υιός is implied, for μονογενὴς can only mean "the only son" (it cannot mean anything else - - μονογενὴς always entails a filial relation).

If μονογενὴς is construed as a substantive, Θεὸς becomes predicate, or appositional. Here Θεὸς translates to "divine" although theologians often prefer "God," also meaning the properties of God in the predicate position (cf. Jn 1:1c). In fact Jn 1:1c can be translated "The Word was divine" or "The Word was God" - they are almost equivalent phrases in the predicate position, although the latter is preferable for laying an emphasis of the authority of the Word. (The NET bible uses "fully God" - although this is not a good translation because "God" is not an adjective and there is no need to use "fully" as agency of the Father is inferred by the context of Jn 1:1b.)

In the Greek Θεὸς can be a common noun, and the article is not implied when used as predicate. Here the common noun Θεὸς is subject to the given context, which in Jn 1:18 is clearly its association with the Father (who is also titled "o Θεὸς"). When in the predicate position,Θεὸς infers "the properties or essence of God (i.e. of the Father)".

Thus I posit that the following translations can be used as legitimate English translations for the "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" rendition:

1. "No one has ever seen God, but the only divinely begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

2. "No one has ever seen God, but the unique Son, begotten of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

[NB: I am indebted to this article (not free from this source) for inspiring me.]
 
Last edited:
Most scholars now seem to prefer "μονογενής υιός" (KJV - Byzantine) as the safest rendition, even though the authoritative early uncials suggest "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" should be the preferred rendition.

The question is this: does a translation of "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" (no article) exist that will stand the test of orthodoxy and allow the early uncial codices to retain their pre-eminence over the later Byzantine reading, which many accept is a recension (especially Hort - see "Two Dissertations")?

Mooted translations that are unacceptable are any and all polytheistic translations that appear to set up another God to rival the Father, e,.g. such as "only begotten God."

The solution may however be straightforward, given this very important point: μονογενὴς without υιός can and must stand on its own as a substantive in its own right. Where υιός is not appended to μονογενὴς in other places in the gospels, υιός is implied, for μονογενὴς can only mean "the only son" (it cannot mean anything else - - μονογενὴς always entails a filial relation).

If μονογενὴς is construed as a substantive, Θεὸς becomes predicate, or appositional. Here Θεὸς translates to "divine" although theologians often prefer "God," also meaning the properties of God in the predicate position (cf. Jn 1:1c). In fact Jn 1:1c can be translated "The Word was divine" or "The Word was God" - they are almost equivalent phrases in the predicate position, although the latter is preferable for laying an emphasis of the authority of the Word. (The NET bible uses "fully God" - although this is not a good translation because "God" is not an adjective and there is no need to use "fully" as agency of the Father is inferred by the context of Jn 1:1b.)

In the Greek Θεὸς can be a common noun, and the article is not implied when used as predicate. Here the common noun Θεὸς is subject to the given context, which in Jn 1:18 is clearly its association with the Father (who is also titled "o Θεὸς"). When in the predicate position,Θεὸς infers "the properties or essence of God (i.e. of the Father)".

Thus I posit that the following translations can be used as legitimate English translations for the "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" rendition:

1. "No one has ever seen God, but the only divinely begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

2. "No one has ever seen God, but the unique Son, begotten of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

[NB: I am indebted to this article (not free from this source) for inspiring me.]
Not sure why it took them so long to reach this obvious conclusion, since the expression μονογενὴς Θεὸς nowhere else occurs in the Scripture but μονογενής υιός appears in multiple biblical books and authors.
 
Apparently the "prevailing view" today is that monogenes means "unique", but which seems to be derived exclusively from its scriptual application to inanimate objects as well as human beings. Against this is the unanimous witness of scripture to monogenes meaning "only begotten" when used of persons, which is to say the "genes" part of monogenes must be retained when speaking of persons. Also arguing for this view is B Dahms, The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered, New Testament Studies 29 (1983) 222-232, He says, inter alia,

"monogenes, when used of persons, was always understood
to include the idea of generation. This understanding did not have
its beginning at the time of the Arian controversy.....
We have shown that the view that monogenes in the Johannine literature
does not mean 'only begotten' has very little to be said in its favour. In
discussing the arguments advanced to support that view, we have brought
forth strong reasons favouring the other side. We now proceed to draw
attention to a further consideration supportive of our thesis......
We have examined all of the evidence which has come to our attention
concerning the meaning of monogenes in the Johannine writings and have
found that the majority view of modern scholarship has very little to
support it. On the other hand, the external evidence, especially that from
Philo, Justin and Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of
its occurrences, makes clear that 'only begotten' is the most accurate translation
after all."

....to which I would add, 'only begotten [son]' is always the implication where υἱός is omitted and where monogenes is used of a person: cf. Heb 11:17, where the KJV even inserts the word 'son' in recognition of this.
 
Jn 1:18 (KJV) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
which follows the Byzantine Majority Text: "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο"

However, re Jn 1:18, it is well known that "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" supplants "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός" in … Clement of Alexandria, Origen, …

These two are mixed, showing support for both variants.

And supporting Son:

Son

Tertullian
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Third Synod of Antioch (c. 259 to Paul of Samosta)
Archelaus,
Eusebius - 6 times
Alexander of Alexandria,313
Eustathius - 320
Hilary of Poitiers (Latin)
Ps-Athanaius - contra Sabellius
Emporer Julian (0362)
Gregory Nazianzen
 
These two are mixed, showing support for both variants.

And supporting Son:

Son

Tertullian
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Third Synod of Antioch (c. 259 to Paul of Samosta)
Archelaus,
Eusebius - 6 times
Alexander of Alexandria,313
Eustathius - 320
Hilary of Poitiers (Latin)
Ps-Athanaius - contra Sabellius
Emporer Julian (0362)
Gregory Nazianzen
The meaning of language can change over time. Thus if the general usage of μονογενὴς widened over the centuries, it could provide a justification for the adoption of υίός in place of Θεὸς. Another possibility is the increasing tendency of Christians to ignore the article/anarthrous distinction in the θεὸς title, as in john 1:1b/John 1:1c. Thus many including Cyril of Alexandra had begun to adopt the non-biblical phrase ὁ θεὸς λόγος" ("God the Word"), ignoring the matter that θεὸς is without the article in Jn 1:1c. As Hort says "ὁ μονογενὴς Θεὸς" (i.e. with the article) would make little sense in the light of Jn 1:1.

"μονογενὴς Θεὸς" is a unique and a difficult phrase, reliant on narrow grammatical understandings of both μονογενὴς and anarthrous Θεὸς to make its point, and whose subtlety may have become lost over the years with the introduction of the unscriptural phrase ὁ θεὸς λόγος ("God the Word"). It's interesting that Eusebius in the early part of his career also uses ὁ θεὸς λόγος, but towards the end in his final writings, abandoned this usage. Per Hort "Two Dissertations":

"υίός is one of the numerous Ante-nicene readings of a ‘Western’ type
(in the technical not the strictly geographical sense of the
word) which were adopted into the eclectic fourth century
text that forms the basis of later texts generally
. As far
as external testimony goes, θεός and υίός are of equal antiquity:
both can be traced far back into the second century.

"But if we examine together any considerable number of readings
having the same pedigree as νίός, certain peculiar omissions
always excepted, we find none that on careful consideration
approve themselves as original in comparison with the alternative
readings, many that are evident corrections."

No like suspiciousness attaches to the combination of authorities which
read θεός. Analysis of their texts completely dissipates the
conjecture, for it is nothing more, that they proceed from an
imagined Egyptian recension.
The wrong readings which they
singly or in groups attest can be traced to various distant origins,
and their concordance marks a primitive transmission
uncorrupted by local alterations. Such being the case, θεός is
commended to us as the true reading, alike by the higher character
of the authorities which support it, taken separately, and
by the analogy of readings having a similar history in ancient
times.
"
.
.
.
"No writer except St John applies μονογενής to our Lord at all,
and he only in the three other closely connected places already cited.
In each of them there is a distinctly perceptible reason why υιός should be introduced;
and moreover there were obvious objections to the employment by St John of the definite title
"ό μονογενής θεός,"
that is, with the article.
 
Last edited:
Iliad 9.481-2
And gave me (Phoenix) his love, even as a father loves his own son who is a single child brought up among many possessions.

καί μ' ἐφίλησ' ὡς εἴ τε πατὴρ ὃν παῖδα φιλήσῃ μοῦνον τηλύγετον πολλοῖσιν ἐπὶ κτεάτεσσι


Antiquities of the Jews 1.222
Now Abraham greatly loved Isaac, as being his only begotten and given to him at the borders of old age, by the favor of God

Ἴσακον δὲ ὁ πατὴρ Ἅβραμος ὑπερηγάπα μονογενῆ ὄντα καὶ ἐπὶ γήρως οὐδῷ κατὰ δωρεὰν αὐτῷ τοῦ θεοῦ γενόμενον


Antiquities of the Jews 12.195
And when he (Hyrcanus, Son of Joseph) was come back, his father was mightily pleased with his sagacity, and commended the sharpness of his understanding, and his boldness in what he did. And he still loved him the more, as if he were his only genuine son, while his brethren were much troubled at it.

ἐλθόντα δ᾽ ὁ πατὴρ ὑπερηγάπησεν τοῦ φρονήματος, καὶ τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς διανοίας καὶ τὸ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ τολμηρὸν ἐπαινέσας ὡς μόνον ὄντα γνήσιον ἔτι μᾶλλον ἔστεργεν ἀχθομένων ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν.
 
Last edited:
Jn 1:18 (KJV) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
which follows the Byzantine Majority Text: "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο"

However, re Jn 1:18, it is well known that "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" supplants "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός" in the early Bible Codices: א B C L, the Version of Lower Egypt and Peshito Syriac, in the Valentinian Gnostics (circa 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Didymus, and some others, and is favored by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Revisers (margin).

Whereas "μονογενής υιός" occurs in the later versions: A (Byzantine Gospels), X, etc., Latin Versions, Old Syriac, Eusebius, Athanasius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom and others, and is favored by Lachmann (text), Tischendorf, Alford, McClellan, Scrivener, Revisers (text).

Most scholars now seem to prefer "μονογενής υιός" (KJV - Byzantine) as the safest rendition, even though the authoritative early uncials suggest "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" should be the preferred rendition.

The question is this: does a translation of "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" (no article) exist that will stand the test of orthodoxy and allow the early uncial codices to retain their pre-eminence over the later Byzantine reading, which many accept is a recension (especially Hort - see "Two Dissertations")?

Mooted translations that are unacceptable are any and all polytheistic translations that appear to set up another God to rival the Father, e,.g. such as "only begotten God."

The solution may however be straightforward, given this very important point: μονογενὴς without υιός can and must stand on its own as a substantive in its own right. Where υιός is not appended to μονογενὴς in other places in the gospels, υιός is implied, for μονογενὴς can only mean "the only son" (it cannot mean anything else - - μονογενὴς always entails a filial relation).

If μονογενὴς is construed as a substantive, Θεὸς becomes predicate, or appositional. Here Θεὸς translates to "divine" although theologians often prefer "God," also meaning the properties of God in the predicate position (cf. Jn 1:1c). In fact Jn 1:1c can be translated "The Word was divine" or "The Word was God" - they are almost equivalent phrases in the predicate position, although the latter is preferable for laying an emphasis of the authority of the Word. (The NET bible uses "fully God" - although this is not a good translation because "God" is not an adjective and there is no need to use "fully" as agency of the Father is inferred by the context of Jn 1:1b.)

In the Greek Θεὸς can be a common noun, and the article is not implied when used as predicate. Here the common noun Θεὸς is subject to the given context, which in Jn 1:18 is clearly its association with the Father (who is also titled "o Θεὸς"). When in the predicate position,Θεὸς infers "the properties or essence of God (i.e. of the Father)".

Thus I posit that the following translations can be used as legitimate English translations for the "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" rendition:

1. "No one has ever seen God, but the only divinely begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

2. "No one has ever seen God, but the unique Son, begotten of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

[NB: I am indebted to this article (not free from this source) for inspiring me.]
No, most of modern Greek manuscript copies are coruupted. John 1:18 correctly quotes as 'only begotten God'. See this link-

.
 
No like suspiciousness attaches to the combination of authorities which read θεός. Analysis of their texts completely dissipates the
conjecture, for it is nothing more, that they proceed from an imagined Egyptian recension.

Hort does not tell us who specifically takes the position of an "imagined Egyptian recension".
Any idea?

On the other hand, there is humor in this comment, since Hort was the Master of Imagined Recensions, Greek and Syriac.
 
No, most of modern Greek manuscript copies are coruupted. John 1:18 correctly quotes as 'only begotten God'.
You obviously haven't understood my posts. The rendering "only begotten God" (and alternatively the "unique God") is wrong, because monogenes, when applied to a human being (Jesus was a human being), can only mean "only begotten son." The aforementioned English renditions are therefore wrong.

Many people including Bart Ehrman say that monogenes theos cannot be correct, because "only begotten God" is not Johannine. True: it's not, but then the intention was not to read "only begotten God," which entails an incorrect understanding of "monogenes".

This is why I suggest "only begotten son of God" is a better renditio of monogenes theos.
 
Last edited:
You obviously haven't understood my posts. The rendering "only begotten God" and (the "unique God") is wrong, because mongenes in Greek, when applied to a human being, means "only begotten son." The aforementioned English translations are therefore wrong.

Did you realize you were quoting Hort who argues for the corruption "only begotten God"?

And why include Son, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός , if monogenes already means Son? And it is unclear what is meant by your "applied to a human being" since God is involved in the Fatherhood.

What is your preferred text, in Greek and English?

And Hort's hilarious talking of an imagined Egyptian recension is simply a textual observation. Burgon explains it well.
 
Not sure why it took them so long to reach this obvious conclusion, since the expression μονογενὴς Θεὸς nowhere else occurs in the Scripture but μονογενής υιός appears in multiple biblical books and authors.
No one has ever seen God - now that's the problem.

Solution: Only Begotten God which agrees with John 1:1.

The unseen and unapproachable God is not compatible to creation and that's where YHWH is presented in form of Man and all Anthromorphism of OT relates to Him in face to face with creation:

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of יהוה Elohim walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, and Aḏam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of יהוה Elohim among the trees of the garden.

Moreover, Exod 15:3 says:
3 יהוה is a man of battle, יהוה is His Name.

Now Who is Yeshua/Yahusha Messiah? He is YHWH manifested in flesh:


ܐܬܝܠܕ ܠܟܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܝܘܡܢܐ ܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܡܪܝܐ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܒܡܕܝܢܬܗ ܕܕܘܝܕ
Luk 2:11 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}.

On the surface it seems alleged discrepancy. How can YHWH be also Anointed One?

We must understand the distinction. YHWH, though presented in OT as The Father of Israel, He is also presented as a Soul being.

The distinction is in between Spirit and Soul. That's where the distinction between The Father and Son occured - not between Persons.

Yahusha Messiah (aka Jesus - corrupted name) in His Bodily form is invisible God's equal share. The unknown substance of invisible God is transcripted to the bodily form in Yahusha Messiah - 1John 5:7 (Spirit Water and Blood). That's the reason for His supernatural virgin birth. He didn't get any DNA from Mary as His Body wasn't from the dust of the earth - Heb 10:5.

He had body of flesh made without hands. It's the tabernacle of God Himself - Immanuel. However, His Body was animated by Adam's mortal breath for the sake of death. He is Soul being in likeness of men though He is YHWH. He was externally Anointed as The Messiah by His own Spirit of The Father.

God Who is unseen is transitioning Himself through Mediatorship to be Permanently visible in the age to come. Isaiah 9;6 says He is called Everlasting Father which we see in Rev 21:

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.

Col 2: 9 For in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
 
You obviously haven't understood my posts. The rendering "only begotten God" (and alternatively the "unique God") is wrong, because monogenes, when applied to a human being (Jesus was a human being), can only mean "only begotten son." The aforementioned English renditions are therefore wrong.

Many people including Bart Ehrman say that monogenes theos cannot be correct, because "only begotten God" is not Johannine. True: it's not, but then the intention was not to read "only begotten God," which entails an incorrect understanding of "monogenes".

This is why I suggest "only begotten son of God" is a better renditio of monogenes theos.
See my later post
 
Did you realize you were quoting Hort who argues for the corruption "only begotten God"?
Of course.

And why include Son, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός , if monogenes already means Son?
Clarity. Remember Hebrews 11:17-19 also doesn't include υἱός when used of Isaac.

And it is unclear what is meant by your "applied to a human being" since God is involved in the Fatherhood.
Monogenes can only be applied to a human being. This is my whole point.

What is your preferred text, in Greek and English?
I am 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.

The English of monogenes theos is difficult, because theos is almost being used as a qualifier or descriptor, not as a title (cf. Jn 1:1c). Perhaps "Divinely begotten son of God" or simply "God's only begotten son" is apt. I have discovered that when it comes to translating Greek, oft times you have to adopt a paraphrase because there is no valid English literal translation. As Erhman says, it makes for a "nearly impossible syntax."

And Hort's hilarious talking of an imagined Egyptian recension is simply a textual observation. Burgon explains it well.
I really don't understand your point. All the early manuscripts attest monogenes theos.
 
Last edited:
I believe John 1:18 is about 'Monogenes Theos' because the whole chapter of John 1 is on the Divinity of Messiah as older manuscript copies show.
Certainly monogenes theos reflects Jn 1:1c, but perhaps moreso Jn 10:34-36 (they are called "Gods" to whom the word of God came).

Recall that "theos" was not only used as a title of the Father, but as a descriptor for anyone possessed of the word of God, amongst which class of persons, Jesus included himself. It is in this latter sense, of theos without the article, that the only begotten son is attributed with the theos descriptor in Jn 1:18.
 
Also to argue that μονογενὴς Θεὸς is a "hapax legomenon" is a non-starter, since biblical hapax legomenons invariably have to do with simple (usually one word) terms and concepts for everyday words which are never theologically loaded. See here for examples.
 
Also to argue that μονογενὴς Θεὸς is a "hapax legomenon" is a non-starter, since biblical hapax legomenons invariably have to do with simple (usually one word) terms and concepts for everyday words which are never theologically loaded. See here for examples.
My current opinion is that μονογενὴς Θεὸς can only extend to context of John 10:34-36. Trinitarians always misunderstand the context of μονογενὴς Θεὸς, because they refuse to understand μονογενὴς as "only begotten (human son)," which is all it can mean, and which gives the only permissible context as John 10:34-36 i.e. those with or identifying as the word of God are described as God(s) per the Old Testament stipulation.
 
Biblical eisegesis. The expression μονογενὴς Θεὸς is non-biblical. It occurs no where in the bible.
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.
 
Back
Top