Video Lecture 20: Luke 22:43-44: Jesus in Gethsemane

 

The 20th video lecture in the series Introduction to NT Textual Criticism is accessible at YouTube and at Bitchute.  This lecture is 32 minutes long.  Here's an extract:

            Justin Martyr, who was martyred in the 160s, used this text in his composition Dialogue With Trypho, chapter 103.  Commenting on Psalm 22, verse 14, he wrote, “In the memoirs which, I say, were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying.”

             Reckoning that the Gospel of Luke was not written before the early 60s, this implies that Justin’s copy of the Gospel of Luke was separated from the autograph of the Gospel of Luke by less than a century.

            About two decades after Justin, Irenaeus wrote the Third Book of his composition Against Heresies.  In the 22^nd chapter, Irenaeus used Luke 22:44, mentioning that if Jesus had taken nothing of Mary, that is, if He had not experienced a physical human nature, he would not have eaten food harvested from the earth, He would not have become hungry, or weary, “Nor would He have sweated great drops of blood.” 

            Irenaeus’ contemporary Tatian included Luke 22:43-44 in his Diatessaron, around the year 172.  Around the year 360, as Ephrem Syrus composed his commentary on the Diatessaron, he also mentioned the detail about Jesus’ sweat becoming like drops of blood. 

            Also, in Ephrem’s Carmina Nisibena, in Hymn 35, part 18, Ephrem pictures the devil saying about Jesus, “While He was praying I saw Him and was glad, because He changed color and was afraid:  His sweat was as drops of blood, because He felt that His day had come.”

            In the early 200s, the writer Hippolytus referred to Luke 22:44, near the beginning of chapter 18 of Against Noetus.  In the course of giving examples of the contrast between Jesus’ divinity and humanity, Hippolytus wrote that “In agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel.”

            The first patristic writer to mention manuscripts that do not support Luke 22:43-44 is Hilary of Poitiers.  Around 350, in Book 10 of his Latin composition De Trinitate, in part 41, Hilary wrote, “We cannot overlook that in very many Greek and Latin codices nothing is recorded about the angel’s coming, and the sweat like blood.” 

            Despite acknowledging such manuscripts, Hilary does not offer a judgment on whether the passage has been omitted in the copies where it is absent, or interpolated in the copies in which it is found.  He seems to have been less concerned about reaching a correct verdict on the textual question and more concerned about promoting correct theology.

            He said that heretics should not be encourage by the idea that Jesus’ weakness is confirmed by the need for an angel to strengthen Him, and that His sweat should not be construed as a sign of weakness.  And like Irenaeus, he points out that the bloody sweat demonstrated the reality of Jesus’ physical body.  When he states, “We are forced to the conclusion that all this happened on our account.” He seems content to use the text.

            In 374, Epiphanius of Salamis made some very interesting statements about Luke 22:43-44.  In Panarion 19:4, he quoted these verses an example of passages that Arians use to show that Jesus sometimes needed assistance from others, or that He was inferior to the Father:  “And it says in the Gospel according to Luke, ‘There appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening Him when He was in agony, and He sweat; and His sweat was as it were drops of blood, when He went out to pray before His betrayal.” 

            It should be noticed that Epiphanius quoted verse 43 with the reading “angel of the Lord.”  

            In Panarion 61, Epiphanius used the passage again in the same way.  He used the passage for doctrinal purposes, and stated that without the display of agony and sweat pouring from His body, the Manichaeans and Marcionites might seem reasonable in their theory that Christ was an apparition, and not completely real.”  He emphasizes how Jesus’ sweat like blood showed that “His flesh was real, and not an apparition.”

            Epiphanius claims in Panarion that Arius cited this very passage from the Gospel of Luke in an attempt to demonstrate the subordination of the Son to the Father.

            So far, we could read Epiphanius’ remarks and think that the only form of the text he knew included verses 43 and 44.  But in Ancoratus, chapter 31, Epiphanius wrote that the passage “is found in the Gospel according to Luke in unrevised copies.”  Then he said, “The orthodox have removed the passage, frightened and not thinking about its significance.”  Coming from someone who seemed ready to blame heretics for bad weather, this is a remarkable statement.

            Epiphanius uses Luke 22:43-44 again in Ancoratus chapter 37 as evidence that Jesus was truly human, and that His sweat shows that He was physical.    

            Around the year 405 in Asia Minor, Macarius Magnes, in the third part of the work Apocriticus, quoted from a pagan writer, probably Hierocles, a student of Porphyry.  Hierocles lived in the late 200s and early 300s. 
            When this pagan writer objected to Jesus’ statement, “Do not fear those who kill the body,” he wrote that Jesus Himself, “being in agony,” prayed that His sufferings should pass from Him.”  The term “being in agony” here is probably a recollection of Luke 22:43, because this term is used there, but not in the parallel-passages.          

            For the testimony of Amphilochius of Iconium, who lived from about 340 to about 400, we rely on a collection of extracts in the medieval manuscript Athous Vatopedi 507, from the 1100s.  A note simply says:  “Of Amphilochius bishop of Iconium, on the Gospel of Luke:  it states there, “Being in agony, He prayed more earnestly.”

            There is some reason to wonder whether Didymus the Blind, or someone else, was the author of the Greek composition called De Trinitate that is attributed him.  Some interpretations of the author are different from interpretations expressed by Didymus in some other works.  But, theologians do sometimes change their views.  Whoever wrote De Trinitate, he made an accurate quotation of Luke  22:43 in Book 3, Part 21.

             Ambrose of Milan, in the late 300s, in his commentary on Luke, seems to use a text that did not include verses 43-44; he does not mention the appearance of an angel and he does not mention that Jesus’ sweat became like drops of blood.

            John Chrysostom is yet another patristic writer who used Luke 22:43-44.  Once he did so in a comment on Psalm 109.  And once he did so in the course of his 83^rd Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, which covers the parallel-material in Matthew 26:36-38.

            In Homily 83 on Matthew, Chrysostom does not say that he has put down the text of Matthew and has turned to the text of Luke.  But after referring to Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denials, and Peter’s insistence that he will never deny Jesus, Chrysostom transitions to the contents of Luke 22:43, stating, “And He prays with earnestness, in order that the thing might not seem to be acting.  And sweat flows over Him for the same cause again, even that the heretics might not say this, that His agony was a pretense.  Therefore there is a sweat like blood, and an angel appeared strengthening Him, and a thousand sure signs of fear.”
            After interpreting this for several sentences, Chrysostom returns to the text of Matthew 26:40.

            We will reconsider the significance of this after we have seen the testimony of the cluster of manuscripts known as family 13.

            For now, let’s go on to the next patristic reference.

            The testimony of John Cassian should not be overlooked, even though his name does not appear in the textual apparatus for Luke 22:43-44 in the UBS Greek New Testament or the Nestle-Aland compilation.  John Cassian traveled widely:  to the Holy Land, to Egypt, and to Rome, before residing in what is now France in about 415.  In his First Conference of Abbot Isaac on Prayer, also known as the Ninth Conference, in chapter 25, Cassian states that the Lord, “in an agony of prayer, even shed forth drops of blood.”

            Jerome, in Against the Pelagians, Book 2, part 16, shows that he was aware of some copies that had Luke 22:43-44, and some copies that did not.  In 383, he included this passage in the Vulgate.  Later, in Against the Pelagians, he wrote that these words – the words we know as Luke 22:43-44 – are “In some copies, Greek as well as Latin, written by Luke,” which implies that Jerome also knew of copies in which the verses were not included.

           Theodore of Mopsuestia, a contemporary of Jerome who worked mainly in Syria and Cilicia, also had Luke 22:43-44 in his Gospels-text.  In 1882, the researcher H. B. Swete published a collection of some fragments from Theodore’s works, and one of them includes a full quotation of Luke 22:43-44.

            Only slightly later comes Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who famously oversaw the withdraw of 200 copies of the Diatessaron in his churches.  In 453, Theodoret wrote Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, and in this work, after presenting Jesus’ statement in John 12:27, he says that Luke taught more clearly how Jesus was indeed suffering, when He was in agony, and he proceeds to use part of verse 44.   

            Now we come to the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria, who died in the year 444.  In Cyril of Alexandria’s Sermon 146 and Sermon 147 on the Gospel of Luke, Cyril describes the events in Gethsemane in Luke 22, but he does not mention the appearance of an angel, and he does not mention Jesus being in agony or shedding drops of sweat like blood.  

            He states, “Everywhere we find Jesus praying alone, you may also learn that we ought to talk with God over all with a quiet mind, and a heart calm and free from all disturbance.”  This is not the sort of thing one says when one is reading a text that says that Jesus is praying in agony, and sweating huge drops of blood.

            Cyril says in Sermon 147,  “Let no man of understanding say that He offered these supplications as being in need of strength or help from another – for He is Himself the Father’s almighty strength and power.”  Cyril does not come out and say that he rejects the idea that an angel appeared and strengthened Jesus, but he comes very close to doing so.

            Severus of Antioch, in the first half of the 500s, supplies some additional information about the text used by Cyril.  In an extract from the third letter of the sixth book that he wrote to “the glorious Caesaria,” Severus stated the following:

            “Regarding the passage about the sweat and the drops of blood, know that in the divine and evangelical Scriptures that are at Alexandria, it is not written.  Wherefore also the holy Cyril, in the twelfth book written by him on behalf of Christianity against the impious demon-worshipper Julian, plainly stated the following: 

            “‘But, since he said that the divine Luke inserted among his own words the statement that an angel stood and strengthened Jesus, and his sweat dripped like blood-drops or blood, let him learn from us that we have found nothing of this kind inserted in Luke’s work, unless perhaps an interpolation has been made from outside which is not genuine. 

            The books therefore that are among us contain nothing whatever of this kind.  And so I consider it madness for us to say anything to him about these things.  And it is a superfluous thing to oppose him regarding things that are not stated at all, and we shall be very justly condemned to be laughed at.’”

            Then Severus says:  “In the books therefore that are at Antioch and in other countries, it is written, and some of the fathers mention it.”  He names “Gregory the Theologian” and John Chrysostom as two examples.  Then he says that he himself used this text, “in the sixty-fourth homily.”

            In this way, Severus drew his reader’s attention to Emperor Julian’s use of the passage in the mid-300s, and to Cyril of Alexandria’s rejection of the passage in the early 400s, and to the acceptance of the passage in Antioch, and by Gregory of Nazianzus, by John Chrysostom, and by Severus himself. 

            Severus’ testimony is particularly significant because he specifies that the copies in Alexandria lacked the passage.    

            Later, in the 600’s, a writer named Athanasius, Abbot of Sinai, is credited with yet another text-critically relevant statement about Luke 22:43-44.  Amy Donaldson, in her 2009 dissertation, Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers,  included his statement: 

            “Be aware that some attempted to delete the drops of blood, the sweat of Christ, from the Gospel of Luke and were not able.  For those copies that lack the section are disproved by many and various gospels that have it; for in all the gospels of the nations it remains, and in most of the Greek.”

            There is also a marginal note, preserved in minuscule 34, that states that “the report about the sweat-drops is not in some copies, but Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius of Constantinople, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and other holy fathers testify to it being in the text.” 

            We could examine more patristic support for Luke 22:43-44, from Augustine and Nestorius, for example.  But let’s go back to the evidence from Chrysostom. 

            Why, in Homily 83 on Matthew, does he take a detour to comment on Luke 22:43-44?  It cannot be absolutely ruled out that he just wanted to cover a parallel-passage.  But another possibility is that by the time John Chrysostom wrote Homily 83 on Matthew, it was already customary that when the lector read the Gospels-reading for the Thursday of Holy Week, after reading Matthew 26:39, he also read Luke 22:43-44.

            John’s brief detour into Luke 22 interlocks very snugly with this custom.  In addition, in Codex C, a secondary hand has written the text of Luke 22:43-44 in the margin near Matthew 26:39. 

            This brings us to the evidence from the cluster of manuscripts known as family 13.  In most members of family-13, Luke 22:43-44 appears in Luke, either in the text or margin after Luke 22:42.  Most of the members of family 13 also have these two verses embedded in the text of Matthew after 26:39. 
            The evidence from minuscule 1689, a member of family 13, is very helpful.  This manuscript was lost for several years, but has been found safe and sound in the city of Prague.  It has Luke 22:43-44 in the text of Luke, and alongside Matthew 26:39, there is a margin-note instructing the lector to jump to Section 283 in the Gospel of Luke – that is, to jump to Luke 22:43-44.

            Many other manuscripts have similar notes in the margin at this point, as part of the lectionary apparatus.
            It does not require a long leap to deduce what has happened in family 13:  instead of resorting exclusively to margin-notes to instruct the lector to jump from Matthew 26:39 to Luke 22:43-44 and then return to Matthew 26:40, someone whose work influenced members of family 13 simplified things for the lector, by combining the parts of the lection in order within the text of Matthew. 

             Some commentaries have misrepresented this as if it implies that the passage is not genuine.  But the evidence in family 13 just shows that a passage that was regarded as part of the text of Luke was embedded into the text of Matthew after 26:39 for liturgical purposes.

            On a related point:  when Luke 22:43-44 is accompanied by one or more asterisks, such as in minuscule 1216, the default deduction should not be that the purpose of the asterisks was to express scribal doubt, but to serve as part of the lectionary apparatus, drawing attention to the two verses that were to be read after Matthew 26:39 in the lection for Maundy Thursday. 

            So:  was Luke 22:43-44 initially present, or initially absent?  The passage is supported by a broad array of manuscripts, plus the manuscripts of over 20 patristic writers, and a couple of non-Christian writers.  Four patristic writers – Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Athanasius of Sinai – show that they were aware that verses 43-44 were not supported in all copies, but nevertheless they favored the inclusion of the verses.        Epiphanius even said that orthodox individuals had attempted to remove the passage.

            One Latin writer – Ambrose of Milan – did not have verses 43 and 44 in his text of Luke 22. 

            And one Greek writer, Cyril of Alexandria, from the 400s, definitely did not have verses 43-44 in his text.

            The most ancient evidence, from Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus, includes the passage.  The most geographically diverse support points in the same direction.  And support for these verses does not come only from authors with only one doctrinal view.

            Plus, internally, nothing in the surrounding material calls for the insertion of additional material.  Bart Ehrman has proposed that verses 43-44 do not look like something Luke would write, on the grounds that Luke had an interest in portraying Jesus as “imperturbable.”  However, Luke reports about several actions of Jesus in which His disposition is far from stoical or disinterested, including His criticism of the synagogue-ruler in chapter 13, and His weeping over the city of Jerusalem in chapter 19.  There is no substantial case based on internal evidence for the idea that verses 43-44 could not originate with Luke.

            When we look at the external evidence that supports Luke 22:43-44, the question should not be “Did someone remove these verses from the text of Luke,” but “Why did someone remove these verses from the text of Luke?”

            It is virtually unique to see a Christian writer assert that “the orthodox” tampered with the Gospels-text, and to imply that some orthodox believers revised the text in a way that was influenced by their fear.

            In the 100s, the second-century writer Celsus, in a statement preserved by Origen, claimed that some believers “alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism.”

            There’s no way to tell if Celsus saw what he says he saw, but it can’t be ruled out that he did indeed notice Christians making changes to the Gospels-text, and that because some of those changes appeared to him to relieve perceived difficulties in the text, he naturally believed that this was the motivation for the changes.

            However, he might have seen, and misunderstood, something else:  textual adjustments that were not made to minimize interpretive difficulties, but to render the text easier to use when it was read in church-services.

            One of those adjustments may have involved a liturgical feature pointed out by John Burgon in The Revision Revised.   Here I slightly paraphrase his observations: 

            “In every known Greek Gospels lectionary, verses 43-44 of Luke 22 follow Matthew 26:39 in the reading for Maundy Thursday.  In the same lectionaries, these verses are omitted from the reading for the Tuesday after Sexagesima – the Tuesday of the Cheese-eaters, as the those in the East call that day, when Luke 22:39-23:1 used to be read.

            Furthermore, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been accommodated to ecclesiastical use, the reader of Luke 22 is invariably directed by a marginal note to skip over these two verses, and to proceed from verse 42 to verse 45.

            What is more obvious, therefore, than that the removal of verses 43 and 44 from their proper place is explained as a side-effect of a lection-cycle of the early church?

            Many manuscripts have been discovered since the time of Burgon, but in general, what he describes is accurate:  Luke 22:43-44 is embedded after Matthew 26:39 in the lection for Maundy Thursday, and it is left out of the lection assigned to the Tuesday after Sexagesima Sunday. 

            The customary transfer of Luke 22:43-44 into the text of Matthew, when the text was read during Easter-week, may explain the sudden detour that Chrysostom took into this passage in the course of his Homily 83.

            A scenario that explains the most evidence in the fewest steps is that when an attempt was made to revise the text for liturgical reading, one group of liturgical revisors took verses 43 and 44 out of Luke 22, but failed to re-insert them into Matthew 26.  As soon as these verses dropped out of the text, the shorter reading was defended along the same lines that we see Cyril of Alexandria use to defend it.

            We do not have hard evidence of this particular liturgical step of revision being undertaken in the second century, but the elegance of Burgon’s explanation is a strong factor in its favor.  Plus, this theory accounts for the correspondence between this particular feature in the Easter-time lections, and the very similar contrast between forms of the text with and without the passage.

            So:  I conclude that Luke 22:43-44 was an original part of the Gospel of Luke. 

             I also conclude that its removal, in the second century, was probably not the result of some copyist’s desire to get rid of what he considered a problematic passage; nor was it the result of a heretic’s desire to remove a text that demonstrated the physicality of Jesus’ body.  Instead, it occurred when orthodox believers transferred verses 43 and 44 into Matthew, after 26:39, conforming to their Easter-time custom, but failed to retain it in Luke, again reflecting their early Eastertime liturgy.  As a result, these two verses fell out of the text. 

            This influenced texts known to Hilary, to Ambrose, and especially  Cyril of Alexandria.  It affected the text that was translated into Sahidic, and the Greek text that was translated into Armenian, and the Armenian text that was translated into Georgian.  But as Athanasius the Abbot of Sinai stated, although some attempted to delete the drops of blood from the Gospel of Luke, the legitimacy of the passage is shown by the “many and various Gospels-manuscripts in which the passage is read.”

            Luke 22:43-44 should therefore be respected and cherished for what it is:  part of the Word of God.

 

John 1:18 - Some Patristic Evidence

John 1:17b-18 in Codex Alexandrinus.

             John 1:18 contains one of the most significant textual variants in the New Testament:  did John write ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός – “the only-begotten Son” – as the vast majority of Greek manuscripts read, or ὁ μονογενης θεος” – “the only begotten God – as a few Alexandrian manuscripts read?  Or did John write μονογενης θεος (without the Greek article ὁ)?  Or did John write something else?

            If mere quantities of witnesses were decisive, the question would be settled in a moment:  about 1,610 Greek manuscripts read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.  Seventeen Greek manuscripts read υἱός accompanied by a minor variation.  (Details from Text und Textwurk:  225, 352*, 581, 1126, 1171, 1651, 2311 and 2462 read ὁ μονογεννὴς υἱός and 2546 reads ὁ μονογενὴς ὁ υἱός and 2479 and 2528 read μονογενὴς υἱός, and 2192 reads ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός του θεου and 1116 reads ὁ μονογενὴς γαρ υἱός; the other variants are trivial.)  Seven Greek manuscripts read θεός, of which only five – P66, À*, B, C*, and L – do not have the article ὁ before μονογενὴς. 

            The reading adopted in NA27 is attested in .3% of the extant Greek manuscripts.  Here, as elsewhere, one may sense the inconsistency of those who speak about “an embarrassment of riches” in the church’s textual treasury and then proceed to adopt readings which imply that 99.7% of the coins are counterfeit.

            Rather than observe such an overwhelming wave of evidence and call it a day, we should consider ancient evidence – and when we do, this contest becomes less lopsided. 

            Data that pertains to this textual contest can be harvested from the textual apparatus of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, from Ezra Abbot’s 1861 article, On the Reading ‘Only-begotten God’ in John 1:18, from Hort’s 1876 dissertation On the Words Μονογενὴς Θεός, and from Paul McReynolds’ essay John 1:18 in Textual Variation and Translation (on pages 105-118 of New Testament Textual Criticism:  Its Significance for Exegesis, 1981).

            That data needs to be carefully processed.  The first thing that needs to be done is to realize that there are more than two horses in the race, so to speak.  ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (The only begotten Son) is the majority reading; μονογενης θεος (only begotten God) is the reading supported by Papyrus 66, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus; ὁ μονογενὴς θεος is supported by Papyrus 75, by an early corrector of Codex Sinaiticus, and by minuscule 33.  Codex W, in a supplemental section, has a slightly different reading:  εἱ μὴ ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (“except the only begotten Son”).  And, as we shall see, some patristic witness support ὁ μονογενὴς, with neither “Son” nor “God.”   

             

            A word of caution may be in order regarding an online essay by Brian J. Wright, Jesus as Θεος (God):  A Textual Examination.  Though described by Daniel Wallace as “outstanding,” and certainly more thorough than most commentaries, the essay contains so many errors that readers are well-advised to avoid relying on Wright’s work without double-checking it.  A few examples of the errors in Wright’s essay may convey why it should be considered thin ice:  (1) Wright listed S* among the witnesses for μονογενὴς θεός; however, this is surely because Wright used a source in which the letter “S” was used in place of “À” and Wright simply failed to realize this, and misreported À’s testimony twice.  (2)  Wright listed Codex D as a witness for ὁ μονογενὴς θεός; however, Codex D – that is, Codex Bezae – is not extant for John 1:18.  (3) Wright listed Hilary among the witnesses for μονογενὴς θεός. (The term is used by Hilary in On the Councils, chapter 36).  However, as Ezra Abbot observed over 150 years ago, although the term “unigenitus Deus” is often used by Hilary, that does not mean that the phrase was in Hilary’s manuscripts of John.  Abbot observed that Hilary “has never quoted the passage with this reading” (i.e., with μονογενὴς θεός) “but has, on the contrary, expressly quoted it seven times with the reading filius; and not only so, but has commented upon it in such a way (De Trin. Lib. VI. c. 39) as to demonstrate beyond question that he thus read the passage.”  (4) His use of Apostolic Constitutions as a witness for “only begotten God” as a reading in John 1:18 does not appear to be based on Scripture-quotations, but merely on the use of the phrase “only begotten God” in Apostolic Constitutions 3:17, 5:20, 8:7 and 8:35. 

            Dispensing with such foggy goggles, let’s look at some patristic evidence in more detail (as well as evidence from three early versions), beginning with the composition Against Heresies, written in the late 170s and early 180s by Irenaeus, the famous apologist and bishop of Lyons.  (Beside most of the following witnesses I have placed a dot:  a red dot = support for “Son,” a blue dot = support for “God,” a green dot = support for both readings, a grey dot = support for something else, and unclear evidence receives no dot.)

 

John 1:15-19 in Papyrus 66.

            

            ● Irenaeus (c. 180).  The testimony of Irenaeus supports both “Son” and “God.”  In Book 3, 11:5-6, Irenaeus states, “The God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favor of drink: the Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father.  For ‘No man,’ he says, ‘has seen God at any time,’ unless ‘the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].’  For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible. Wherefore they know Him to whom the Son reveals Him; and again, the Father, by means of the Son, gives knowledge of His Son to those who love Him.”

            In this use of John 1:18, even with the addition of the words “of God,” it is clear that Irenaeus was using a text that read υἱός and not θεός; not only is υἱός in the quotation but it is also in Irenaeus’ comment which immediately follows (“For He, the Son who is in His bosom,” etc.). 

            In Book 4, 20:6-7, Irenaeus writes, “He [i.e., God] is by no means unknown: for all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and who grants existence to all, as is written in the Gospel:  ‘No man has seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared [Him].’  Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning.”   

            Irenaeus may have used a text of John in which εἱ μὴ preceded ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός in 1:18, as in Codex W^supp, but regardless, υἱός is clearly favored in this quotation and in the subsequent comment (“Therefore the Son of the Father,” etc.).  Hort’s attempt (in his 1876 work Two Dissertations) to spin away from this conclusion is not plausible, despite his confident tone.

            Only shortly later in Book 4, in 20:11, Irenaeus uses a different reading of John 1:18, stating, “It is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, ‘No man has seen God at any time.’  But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father’s brightness, and explained His purposes, as also the Lord said:  ‘The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].’”  This quotation in 4:20:11, while not accompanied by confirmatory exposition, clearly supports the reading θεός.  While it may seem unlikely that Irenaeus would cite two different forms of John 1:18, or that he would fail to point out that they were verbally different, that seems to be what has occurred. 

           

            While on the subject of Irenaeus’ writings, it should be noted that there is an issue regarding Irenaeus’ statement that Irenaeus stated that the Valentinians described the Arche-emanation as μονογενὴς θεός; Paul McReynolds states that Irenaeus claimed that the Valentinians describe the Αρχη as Son and Only-begotten and God (that is, υἱόν και μονογενὴ και θεόν).  However, Hort preferred to follow the text of Epiphanius’ extract from Irenaeus as it appears “in the Venice MS” [Venice MS II. 483, I think] with και υἱόν και μονογενὴ θεόν which, Hort said, agrees with the properly compiled Latin text, “et Filium et Unigenitum Deum” and disagrees with “the common text.”  Following Hort’s approach, it appears that the Valentinians in Irenaeus’ time used the term “only begotten God.”     

                      

● The Diatessaron (172).  The Diatessaron appears to support neither major contender.  The Arabic Diatessaron, although it echoes the arrangement in which Tatian ordered the text of the Gospels in the second century, is not a safe stand-alone guide to Tatian’s text where details are concerned, and regarding the text of John 1:18 almost certainly only echoes the Peshitta, in a form extant in 873 (when the Arabic Diatessaron’s Syriac ancestor-manuscript was made).  Are there other relevant Diatessaronic witnesses?  Yes.  Ephrem Syrus, writing a commentary on the Diatessaron around 360, used John 1:18 in a form which favored neither “only begotten Son” nor “only begotten God” but which read simply “the only Begotten,” treating the Syriac equivalent of μονογενὴς as a noun.  Similarly, in about 345, Aphrahat, another Syriac writer who used the Diatessaron, wrote in part 6 of Demonstration Six (On Monks), “The Only Begotten who is from the bosom of His Father shall cause all the solitaries to rejoice.”  

            ● Hippolytus (190s).  In Contra Noetum 5 Hippolytus specifically quotes John 1:18:  “For John also says, ‘No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”  

            ● Tertullian (very early 200s).  In Against Praxeus 15:6, Tertullian utilizes John 1:18 with clear support for “only-begotten Son”:  “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.”

            ● Clement of Alexandria (150-215).  In Stromateis 5:12. Clement clearly uses John 1:18 with θεός:  “John the apostle says, ‘No man has seen God at any time.  The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.’”  Yet in Who Is the Rich Man Who Shall Be Saved, part 37, we read as follows:  “For what further need has God of the mysteries of love?  And then you shall look into the bosom of the Father, whom God the only-begotten Son alone has declared.”  And in Stromateis 1:26, we read:  “The expounder of the laws is the same one by whom the law was given; the first expounder of the divine commands, who unveiled the bosom of the Father, the only-begotten Son.”  McReynolds provided the Greek text of the final phrase:  – ο τον κόλπον του Πατρος εξηγούμενος υιος μονογενής.  Unless Clement’s compositions’ text has been thoroughly altered by scribes, it would appear that Clement knew of forms of John 1:18 with “only begotten God” and with “only begotten Son.”  

            ● Origen (184-253).  In his Commentary on John, 2:29, Origen makes a clear utilization of John 1:18 with ὁ μονογενὴς θεός:  “Accordingly John came to bear witness of the light, and in his witness-bearing he cried, saying, ‘He that comes after me exists before me; for He was before me; for of His fullness we have all received and grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.  No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.’ This whole speech is from the mouth of the Baptist bearing witness to the Christ.  Some take it otherwise, and consider that the words from ‘for of His fullness’ to ‘He has declared Him’ are from the writer, John the Apostle.”

            In Contra Celsum 2:71, Origen supports θεός in some copies of this composition, but two copies of it read υιος:  “Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, ‘None knows the Father but the Son,’ and in these, ‘No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”  Very probably the copies with υιος represent scribal conformations to the Gospels-text known to later copyists of the composition, as Hort explains in Note A in his dissertation.

            ● The Sahidic version (late 200s or 300s).  Although most Sahidic copies of John are relatively late, the situation changed with the publication in 1981 of P. Palau Ribes 183, part of a Sahidic Gospels-manuscript which has been assigned to the 400s.  (This production-date is not secure, due to the consistency of Coptic scripts in the 400s-700s, but even a production-date in the 700s would be relatively early, as Sahidic manuscripts go.)  The manuscript known as P. Palau Ribes 183 reads as follows, according to Coptic specialist Alin Suciu:  “No one has ever seen God.  God, the only Son, the one who is in the bosom of his Father, that one is he about whom he spoke.”        

            ● The Epistle of Hymenaeus (270).  Also known as The Epistle of Six Bishops, or, The Epistle to Paul of Samosata, this letter was written and signed by Hymenaeus the bishop of Jerusalem, who presided at the Council of Antioch in 264/268.  It was also signed by five other bishops (Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proclus, and Bolanus) to express their opposition against the teachings of Paul of Samosata.  It was mentioned and summarized by Eusebius of Caesarea.  Its text supports ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.          

                    

            ● Hegemonius (late 200s/300s).  According to an obscure writer named Heraclianus of Chalcedon, Hegemonius was the person who wrote down the contents of Archelaus’ Dispute with Manes, but Epiphanius and Jerome claim that the author was Archelaus himself, which would place its composition-date in 277.  It does not seem impossible that Archelaus wrote this composition in Syriac and Hegemonius made a definitive translation.  The latest possible date for the Greek text of this work is the 370’s, since Epiphanius used extracts from it.  In part 32, Archelaus makes a clear utilization of John 1:18 with “only-begotten Son” – “No man has seen God at any time, save the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.”  (Notice that here we have another witness that agrees with Codex W.)   

            ● Eustathius of Antioch (d. 337).  This writer, in the 18th chapter of his work, De Engastrimytho Contra Origenem, utilized John 1:18 with ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, and commented on the verse.  (The citation is in Volume 18 of Migne’s Patrologia Graece, in column 652, digital page #333.) 

            ● Eusebius of Caesarea (early 300s).  The testimony of Eusebius, who is cited in UBS4 as if he utilized ὁ μονογενὴς θεός three times out of seven utilizations, was tested by Abbot, who (in citation-references on page 859 of his article, in a footnote) observed that Eusebius repeatedly used John 1:18 with υἱός.  As evidence, Abbot mentioned De Ecclesiastica Theologia, Book 1, chapter 20, in paragraphs 4, 5, and 7, and Book 2, chapter 23, and a comment on Psalm 73:11, and a comment on Isaiah 6:1, where the entire phrase, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,” is found. 

            Abbot countered the claim (previously advanced by Tregelles) that Eusebius utilized John 1:18 with θεός in De Ecclesiastica Theologia, Book 1, chapter 9, by succinctly showing that the passage supports υἱός more than it supports θεός.  Abbot noticed that in De Ecclesiastica Theologia, Book 3, chapter 7, Eusebius states that the Father alone may be called “the One God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but the Son [may be called] only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father,” – (in the Greek text here, there is no article) – “and the Paraclete, Spirit, but neither God nor Son.”  Abbot minimized this statement as something less than a direct quotation, but to me, it looks like a utilization of John 1:18 with no article before μονογενὴς, followed by θεός.    

            ● Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373).  The bishop of Alexandria in the early 300s might be expected to promote the Alexandrian reading of John 1:18 – but that is not what we find.  Instead, in Defense of Nicea 5:7, Athanasius uses John 1:18 with “the only-begotten Son” as one of the proof-texts that Christ is begotten, not created.  And in Discourse 2, Athanasius quoted John 1:18 with ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός in the midst of a theological discussion. 

            In the composition Contra Sabellians, which is sometimes attributed to Athanasius, all of John 1:18 is cited with “ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.”  If this is not the work of Athanasius then it is the work of another, slightly later, Greek writer.   

John 1:18 in Codex L.

            Arius of Alexandria (250-336) and Auxentius of Milan (d. 374).  Arius is the infamous heretic; Auxentius is an Arian bishop who held the office of bishop in Milan in the 300s before Ambrose.  Auxentius, in his creedal statement of Arian beliefs, said that Wulfilas (translator of the Gothic version, and regarded as an Arian late in his career) taught that God the Father “did create and beget, make, and establish an only-begotten God (unigenitum deum).”  Auxentius used the term “only-begotten God” three more times:

            (1)  Auxentius stated that Wulfilas handed down the argument that “If the inexhaustible power of the only-begotten God (unigeniti dei)  is reliably said to be capable of having made all things celestial and terrestrial, invisible and visible, and is believed rightly and faithfully by us Christians, why is it not credited that the passionless power of God the Father might create His only-begotten Son?”

            (2)  Auxentius stated that Wulfilas “spread abroad, by his words and tractates, that the Father and the Son were different in their divinity, unbegotten God and only-begotten God (dei ingeniti et dei unigeniti).  

            (3)  Auxentius stated, “An unbegotten God being in existence, and one Lord only-begotten existing by God, the Holy Spirit Advocate can be said to be neither God nor Lord.” 

            Although Auxentius never cites John 1:18, it is at least clear from his statements that Arians in the 300s had no objection to the phrase “only begotten God.”  This phrase does not appear in John 1:18 in any Old Latin manuscripts; yet the Arians in the West were entirely comfortable using it.  The notion that the reading in John 1:18 with θεός was a particularly powerful weapon in defense of Trinitarian orthodoxy rings hollow in light of this; it is rather baffling to find modern apologists treating the reading “only-begotten God” as if it is a bulwark against Arianism.  (See, for example, Bob Utley’s claim that John 1:18 with “only-begotten God” is “a strong affirmation of the full and complete deity of Jesus!”)          

            ● De Sanctissima Trinitate Confessio (300s).  This Latin text is usually attributed to Eusebius Vercellensis, although this attribution is not secure; the composition in any event is from no later than the late 300’s.  According to McReynolds, in 4:16 the author quotes John 1:18 with “only-begotten Son” (unigenitus filius) in its fourth chapter. 

            ● Hilary of Poitiers (310-367). In chapter 39 of Book Six of On the Trinity, Hilary specifically quotes John 1:18 and interprets it:  “Let him speak to us in his own familiar voice:  No one has seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.  It seemed to him that the name of Son did not set forth with sufficient distinctness His true divinity, unless he gave an external support to the peculiar majesty of Christ by indicating the difference between Him and all others.  Hence he not only calls Him the ‘Son,’ but adds the further designation of the ‘Only-begotten,’ and so cuts away the last prop from under this imaginary adoption. For the fact that He is Only-begotten is proof positive of His right to the name of Son.”  (Notice the “except,” as if Hilary’s text is an ally of Codex W^supp.)

            Hilary rather frequently uses the phrase “only begotten God” in his writings, but when he makes citations of John 1:18, he shows plainly that his Gospels-text supports “the only begotten Son.”

            ● Phoebadius of Agen (mid-300s).  This Latin-writing bishop in northeast Italy was in the thick of theological controversies; he wrote Against the Arians (Contra Arianos) in 358.  In chapter 12, part 4, as Phoebadius confronts Arian teachings, he quotes from the Gospel of John:  “For John says, ‘No one has ever seen God except the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.’”  This composition is plausibly as old as Codex Sinaiticus; yet Phoebadius’ name seldom appears in commentaries.  (Notice again the agreement with W^supp.)

           

            ● Gregory Nazianzus (329-390).  Gregory Nazianzus provides a clear citation of John 1:18 in his Third Theological Oration (also titled Oration 29), chapter 17, using John 1:18 as a proof-text for the deity of Christ:  “Then the Son is only-begotten:  ‘The only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father,’ it says, ‘He has declared Him.’”

            ● Basil (330-379).  In De Spiritu Sancto 8, 15, and 27, in 375, Basil used a series of proof-texts.  In chapter 15, as Basil demonstrated that the exaltation of Christ as divine is Scriptural, he wrote:  “We ask them to listen to the Lord Himself, distinctly setting forth the equal dignity of His glory with the Father, in His words, ‘He who has seen Me has seen the Father,’ and again, ‘When the Son comes in the glory of His Father,’ ‘that they should honor the Son even as they honor the Father, and, ‘We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,’ and, ‘The only-begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father.’  Of all these passages they take no account, and then assign to the Son the place set apart for His foes.  A father’s bosom is a fit and becoming seat for a son, but the place of the footstool is for them that have to be forced to fall.” 

            In chapter 8 of De Spiritu Sancto, Basil writes that the Scripture “uses terms descriptive of His nature, for it recognizes the name which is above every name, the name of Son, and speaks of true Son, and only-begotten God, and power of God, and Wisdom, and Word.” 

            At the end of chapter 11 of De Spiritu Sancto, Basil clearly shows that his text of John 1:18 read θεός:  following a quotation of First Corinthians 12:3, he states, “And, ‘No man has seen God at any time, but the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.’”

            ● Gregory of Elvira (mid/late 300s).  This opponent of Arianism quoted John 1:18 in Latin in the composition-collection known as Tractatus Origenis (Tractate 16, part 25), preceded by a quotation of Exodus 33:20:  “Non poteris faciem meam videre, nemo enim vidit Deum et vixit?  Salvator quoque in evangelio:  Deum, inquit, nemo vidit umquam nisi unicus filius, qui est in sinu Patris.”  This supports “only begotten Son.”

            ● The Peshitta (late 300s).  The standard Syriac translation supports “only begotten God.”  There is some inconsistency in how the Peshitta’s text of John 1:18 has been translated; to settle this question I consulted Dr. Jeff Childers, who provided the following information: 

            “The expression ihidaya Alaha is pretty straightforward grammatically.  The noun Alaha (“God”) is being modified by the adjectival ihidaya.  It cannot mean “ihidaya of God” – that would be quite a different construction.  It literally means, the “ihidaya God.”  

            Again:  the Peshitta supports ὁ μονογενὴς θεός.  

            ● Didymus the Blind (313-398) (maybe).  The testimony of Didymus should be viewed through the lens of the suspicion that someone other than Didymus is the author of De Trinitate.  Whoever the author of De Trinitate was, he utilized John 1:18 with θεός in 1:15, 1:26 and 2:5.  According to Hort, Didymus used the same text in a comment on Psalm 76:14.  McReynolds lists Didymus’ Commentary on Zachariah 5:33 and Commentary on Ecclesiastes 12:5 as additional utilizations of John 1:18 with θεός.

            ● Epiphanius (late 300s).  According to Hort, in Ancoratus 2:5, 3:9 and in Panarion 612, 817, Epiphanius utilizes John 1:18 with θεός; unfortunately Hort did not specify whether the article was present or not.   

            ● Serapion of Thmuis (300s) and Titus of Bostra (d. 378) have been confused with one another in earlier editions of the UBS Greek New Testament; both authors wrote compositions titled “Against the Manichaeans.”  Without going into detail about the causes of the confusion (See Robert P. Casey’s 1928 article in Harvard Theological Review for details), it should be sufficient to note that John 1:18 with ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is utilized in Adversus Manichaeos 3:6 – the text is in Volume 18 of Migne’s Patrologia Graecae, col. 1224 (digital page #631) – and in the same composition, further along (in column 1240, on digital page #639), the author quotes John 1:18 with the reading “ὁ Μονογενὴς Υἱός Θεός,” and the author describes this as a statement from the Gospel.  (A Syriac version of Titus of Bostra’s Against the Manichaeans is extant in a manuscript dated to 411.)

           

            ● Ambrose of Milan (340-397).  This famous bishop quotes John 1:18 with “only-begotten Son” several times, such as in his work De Ioseph, 14:84 (composed in 388) and in his Exposition on Luke, 1:25 – “Et addidit quod ultra caelestis est potestates:  unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit.”

            ● John Chrysostom (349-407).  This famous writer quoted John 1:18 seven times, and every quotation supports ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.  A definitive example is Chrysostom’s Homily 15 on John; another is in his composition On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 4:3 and 5:1 (found in Vol. 48 of Migne’s Patrologia Graece, columns 731 and 736; digital page #211 and #215).

John 1:18 in a typical medieval minuscule.

            ● Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444).   Cyril of Alexandria might naturally be expected to strongly support μονογενὴς θεός – and he does.  In his Commentary on John, chapter 10, in the course of commenting on John 1:10, the text which forms the heading of the chapter contains μονογενὴς θεός.  In the commentary, Cyril restates the verse slightly loosely:  “No man has seen God at any time; for the Only-Begotten, Himself being God, which is in the bosom of God the Father, made this declaration to us.”  In the same paragraph, Cyril repeatedly uses the phrase “only-begotten God” and attributed it to John’s Gospel.  Cyril also quotes John 1:18 with “The only begotten God” in his Five Tomes Against Nestorius.  (In one instance in his work against Nestorius, and once in the extant text of Cyril’s Thesaurus de Sancta Substantiali Trinitate, in part 35, John’s Gospel is specifically cited and the full contents of John 1:18 are quoted with ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός; these are almost certainly scribal conformations by the copyist of Cyril’s works; in his Thesaurus, Cyril refers to the contents of John 1:18 a few sentences later in the composition, using the expression, “The only-begotten God the Word.”  The scribes who made these conformations were strangely inconsistent, altering some quotations, but not others which were nearby.)

    

            ● Adimantus (mid/late 300s).  This Manichaean heretic wrote a book and Augustine wrote a response to Adimantus’ book.  Usually when Augustine quotes John 1:18, he uses unigenitus to represent “only-begotten,” but in Contra Adimantum 9, a quotation of John 1:18 appears in which unicus is used instead:  deum nemo vidit umquam nisi unicus filius qui est in sinu patris ille adnuntiavit vobis de eo.  (See pages 144-145 of Hugh Houghton’s Augustine’s Text of John, © 2008 H. A. G. Houghton, Oxford University Press.)  Repeatedly in Contra Adimantus, Augustine’s quotations from John depart from the form that he usually employs, suggesting that in these particular quotations, Augustine is quoting passages of John as they were presented in Adimantus’ composition. 

            ● Augustine (354-430).  Augustine utilized John 1:18 without a noun after “only-begotten” in Tractate on the Gospel of John, 3:17 (similar to the Diatesaronic reading used by Ephrem and Aphrahat).  In Tractate 31:3, however, he quotes the verse with “only-begotten Son,” (with the Latin equivalent of ει μη) and in Tractate 35:5 he quotes the verse more precisely, and again in Tractate 47:3:  “He Himself has said, ‘No one has seen God at any time; but the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”

   

            ● Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428).  In Theodore’s commentary on John (composed probably in 404-408), John 1:18 is utilized twice, once with “God the only-begotten,” (as he introduces the verse) and once (in his comment on John 1:29) with “Only Son.”  (See pages 18 and 20 of the English translation of Theodore’s Commentary on John by Marco Conti, edited by Joel C. Elowsky, published by InterVarsity Press, 2010.)  In a comment on Psalm 34:13, Theodore quotes John 1:18 twice, using ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.  (For details see pages 368-369 of Robert C. Hill’s 2006 Theodore of Mopsuestia – Commentary on Psalms 1-81, Translation with Introduction and Notes, published by the Society for Biblical Literature.)  (It is tempting to conclude that some copyist who was influenced by the Peshitta is responsible for the one instance of “God the only-begotten.”)  

            ● The Ethiopic Version (300s or 400s).  Hort, in Note C of his 1876 dissertation, described 19 Ethiopic manuscripts of John:  two at Cambridge and 19 at the British Museum (all of which are very late).  Hort seems to have concluded that two Ethiopic manuscripts support “the only-begotten God,” one supports “the only-begotten of God” (a reading which aligns with a paraphrastic form of the verse used by Eusebius, ὁ μονογενὴς του θεου, in a comment on Psalm 67:2-4), and the remaining 13 support “only-begotten one Son.”           

            An edition of the Ethiopic text made in 1862 by Solomon Caesar Malan gave the impression that the Ethiopic Version favors “the only Son” in John 1:18, with “unto us” at the end of the verse.  (Notice that Cyril of Alexandria also supports a form of John 1:18 with “unto us” at the end.)

            More recently, it has been ascertained (via carbon-dating) that the Ethiopic Garima Gospels were produced in or about the 400s-500s, a date far earlier than any other Ethiopic Gospels-manuscript has been ascertained to have.  A consultation with Michael Wechsler, who edited the Ethiopic text of John (Evangelium Iohannis Aethiopicum) as Volume 617/109 in the series Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium in 2005, revealed that the Garima Gospels supports “the one [or, unique, wahed] God,” which constitutes support for ὁ μονογενης θεος or μονογενης θεος.

            This evidence shows that a simple numerical count of medieval manuscripts does not tell the whole story about this text-critical contest.  At the same time, it also demonstrates that both readings are very ancient, and that both were used by orthodox writers and by heretics. 

            

Readers are invited to explore the embedded links to additional resources.