Repugnant ditheism incorporated into corrupted manuscripts -

the heretical implications of a defiled reading of John 1.18

Home

Is your Bible like this water?

1     No man hath seen God at any time;

2     the only begotten Son [god]

3     which is in the bosom of the Father,

4     He hath declared Him.

 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο
 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε [ο]* μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο
* The definite article is absent in many MSS.

The square bracketed reading ' the only begotten god' is found for example in Papyrus fragment 66 (Geneva), Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus), Codex B (Vaticanus), the Peshitta (an ancient Aramaic translation of the NT), Harclean marginal readings of Aramaic version, and Bohairic Coptic readings. (British and Foreign Bible Society, Critical apparatus, 2nd edition, 1958, London)

Modern translations that include 'the only begotten god' include the NIV, NASV, ESV, New KJV (margin), and many of the United Bible Societies translations.

'No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.' NASB © 1995 Lockman Foundation.

Fenton John Anthony Hort of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, defended this corruption in his dual dissertations on the text in 1876, published by Macmillan and Co., Cambridge and London.  Dr Hort is properly charged with several heresies, among them sympathy for Arianism and a frank denial of penal substitution.

The expression 'the only begotten god' would be unique in all John's writings, betrays the context of John's Prologue and would be a unique and glaringly heretical witness as we reason below. It likely results from yet another example of the extraordinary poor and mistake laden Greek of the scribes of Aleph and Vaticanus. John Burgon arraigns Hort, along with the other RV translators, of also being disingenuous by translating the phrase as 'God only begotten', even if these corrupt manuscripts were accurate, which they are certainly not, then the true sense would have been 'the only begotten God', with or without the article, in the Revision Revised, p.182. 

To turn the Messiah into a little god, a second begotten deity, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, is to shatter the First Commandment, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me' (lit. before My face). 
Jesus the Messiah partakes of true, eternal and full Deity, being the only begotten Son of the Father - One Eternal God, with the Spirit, mysteriously revealed in Three Persons.

Some direct implications:

• The First Commandment is violated by asserting that the Unseen God has begotten another god.

• Or by asserting that the One who demonstrates the unseeable God is Himself unique (μονογενης) god.

• Or by declaring that the One in the bosom of the Father is Himself unique god.

• Violates the figure of intimate communion of the bosom, 'God is in the bosom of the Father'.

• Raises a distinction between the nature of the God who cannot be seen, and that of the unique god who has exegeted Him visibly.

• Raises a distinction between the Deity of the Father and of the god who lies in His bosom.

Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?  (Isa.44.10)

Theology
Ministry of God's Word
Evolution   Rome     EU
Islam/ The Satanic verses
The land of Israel
Christian anti-Semitism