THE ASSAULT ON THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON

by
 Scott Jones

(Transliteration throughout this paper is phonetic)

Part I

For many years now there has been a systematic attempt by mainstream Biblical scholarship to redefine the Greek word “monogenes,” which traditionally has been confined to a strict definition mandating generational descent. Thus, this word has customarily been translated as “only begotten” or “only son of,” et cetera. Conversely, the fashionable trend in modern Biblical scholarship has been to free “monogenes” from its confines of generational descent and attribute a much weaker definition to this word, such as “unique” or “one and only.” We will demonstrate that this endeavor by contemporary Biblical scholarship is not legitimate. Furthermore, the effort to recast the meaning of this word is not superficial, rather, the subtle workmanship which attempts to fabricate a new definition for “monogenes” has profound doctrinal implications, especially with respect to Jesus Christ and His incarnation, His eternal generation, and most importantly, His essence of being.

 

In other words, there is a method to this “scholarly” madness.

 

Why be so concerned over a single Greek word? Because it is written, “And this is the will of him that sent me, every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:40. No man can see the Son if he does not have an accurate image of the Son.

 

This is the great heresy of our day. The image of Jesus Christ has been disfigured by contemporary Biblical scholarship just as surely as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was disfigured by Pilate’s soldiers. The great “falling away” that Paul warned us about is not a future event. It is happening now. Furthermore, it is not happening in the alleyways of the drug addicts or in the glitzy corridors of Hollywood. It is happening within mainstream Christianity itself.

 

The attempt to redefine “monogenes” – in concert with other scriptures that have been altered and watered down – is laying the foundation for the false Christ who is surely soon to come. The doctrine thus derived is the theological nail upon which Satan has hung his shingle. The collateral result is a modern Christianity which is apostate to its core, and if judgment hasn’t already begun, it will – and it will begin at the house of God. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear.

 

The first hint of trouble regarding the definition of “monogenes” surfaced when the new English Revised Bible of 1881 was brought forth. Working together in what was euphemistically known as the Jerusalem Chamber, Westcott & Hort, et. al., produced a Bible that was vastly different and much further removed from the Traditional Text than any Protestant version which had gone before. In fact, the Westcott-Hort text was so dissimilar that it was actually closer to the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible than to the Traditional Text they were supposed to be revising! And while the Traditional Text unquestionably possesses a pedigree extending all the way back to apostolic times - though modern critics thoroughly dismiss and reject out of hand the mountain of evidence supporting this fact - the new Westcott-Hort text which was cooked up in the Jerusalem Chamber by men who obviously saw themselves as visionary was the product of a host of fabricated readings that the Church universal had long since recognized as corrupt and therefore refused to acknowledge. This innovative text of Drs. Westcott and Hort departed from the Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament in about 6,000 places.

 

Fortunately this imaginative pretender did not go unchallenged, for God had raised up an eminently capable and zealously faithful watchman who boldly blew his trumpet and drew his sword. Reminiscent of the mighty men of valor in times long ago, this watchman answered his inferior critics by repeating David’s great cry when reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of battle – “Is there not a cause?” 1 Samuel 17:29.

 

So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. Ezekiel 33:7

 

John William Burgon, then Dean of Chichester College, was raised up by God at a precipitous moment in history. He was contemporary with the Revisers of 1881, and though God’s purpose was probably hidden then, it is evident now as to why God raised him up, viz., to stand in the gap for the preservation of God’s Sacred Written Word.

 

In this respect, it may well be argued that John Burgon is the greatest textual critic to have arisen since the Reformation. He possessed not only a brilliant mind, but a vibrant spiritual character as well. He worshipped the Lord God of his fathers; he paid the highest homage to the Son of God, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, and it comes through in every syllable of his surviving works. Fortunately, those writings have been preserved and made available for us today, even though for a time it appeared as if they would simply fade away. But God had other ideas, and now Burgon’s books can be found in abundance, though one still has to know where to look.

 

A master in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, along with a superb skill in the cognate languages – not to mention an extraordinary familiarity with the scriptures – John Burgon was inferior to no scholar, and his arguments were so devastating that to this very day they have never been refuted. Modern academicians simply sweep him under the rug and ignore him, or – if he is mentioned at all – he is treated by them as an anachronism and the subject is quickly changed. Still, he is not refuted, for Burgon sought truth, not technicality – ultimate truth – and he had the ability to get to the bottom of a matter where other men could only waffle.

 

Moreover, unlike his opponents, Burgon insisted on proof, not assertion; on fact, not ingenuity; on honesty, not cunning. Most importantly, John Burgon believed that God had not only inspired His Written Word, but that He who neither slumbers nor sleeps had also watched over it and preserved it, just as surely as He preserved the lineage of His Living Word, even when Athaliah had succeeded in cutting off all the seed royal except for Joash, just as surely as He preserved His Written Word for Hilkiah the priest, who “found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.” 2 Kings 22:8.

 

It was said of Burgon by one of his few admirers, Alfred Martin, Dean of Faculty, Moody Bible Institute - “Burgon was one of the first to see the dangers of the subjectivism in this “science” as the logical result of the direction set by Griesbach and Lachmann and popularized by Westcott and Hort. Some of his contemporaries saw the pitfalls, but no one sounded the alarm as he did.” BibSac, Vol 123 #490 – Apr-Jun 1966.

 

Thus, this doughty defender of Holy Writ was unafraid of what men might say, of what colleagues might think. He was jealous for the God who raised him up, and sought only to exalt his Lord, Jesus Christ. Accordingly, he made his intentions crystal clear at the outset, candidly revealing his opposition to the Counter-Reformation of the day, whose primary tactic since the publication of Tyndale’s faithful translation was to produce a Bible that would contradict Tyndale and the Traditional Text and thus cast doubt upon its trustworthiness. In a letter to Lord Cranbrook, commenting on his newly published book, “The Revision Revised,” Burgon remarked, “My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred Text, which – recommended though it be by eminent names – I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end.”

 

After expanding a bit, Burgon in the same letter continued, “It is, however, the systematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source.” The Revision Revised, pgs. v-vi.

 

Let Burgon’s words sink into your ears, for they are wise words indeed, especially for this present evil hour.

 

The loggerhead over the Greek word “monogenes” first formed at one of the most defining passages in all of Holy Writ, namely, at John 1:18.

 

The Traditional Text, of course, has always rendered the passage as “o monogenes uios,” meaning “the only begotten Son.”

 

Following the Roman Catholic Manuscript Vaticanus B and several other Alexandrian witnesses, the Revisers of 1881 wished to indicate that “only begotten Son” was probably not the correct reading in John 1:18. Since Vaticanus and the Alexandrian witnesses read “monogenes Theos,” meaning “only begotten God,” the Revisers inserted a very disconcerting marginal note into their Revision. We’ll discuss this in a moment, but the historical import of this “marginal note” must not be ignored, for this was the beginning of the modern attempt to redefine the word “monogenes.”

 

The problem with the word “monogenes” as far as the Jerusalem Chamber was concerned boiled down to this: the Revision committee in 1881 knew that they could not possibly get away with an accurate translation of “monogenes Theos.” The Revisers knew that this textual substitution would never be acceptable to the English Christians of that era, for there was a much greater sensitivity to sound doctrine in their day, especially since there were still many men in the pulpit who had learned their doctrine from the Reformation and were therefore prepared to protect the sheep from grievous wolves who are ever seeking to enter in and either slaughter or make merchandise of the flock.

 

Thus, to insert into the text of John 1:18 the reading “only begotten God” would have caused an uproar that could not easily have been silenced. Why?

 

Because the Arian heresy of the fourth century was still understood then, and the phrase “only begotten God” is unequivocally the Arian heresy come back to roost.

 

If you will remember, the Arian heresy broke out in 318 AD and caused a great deal of controversy within the Church universal. Arias, undoubtedly influenced by the Alexandrian school, believed that Jesus was a creature, exalted before all worlds, but not truly of the nature of God. In other words, Arias believed that a big God – the Father – begat a little God – the Son – but that the Son was not himself invested with the same essence and substance of the Father. To say it another way, there was a big God who begat a little God, and this little God became a man, i.e., Jesus Christ. Of course, this heresy was condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, and rightly so, for the scriptures make it perfectly clear that the doctrine of Arias denigrated the Son of God by stealing away the honour which was the Son’s singular due.

 

In order to avoid a similar error, let us establish the truth and ground ourselves in sound doctrine before proceeding further. To wit –

 

God was not begotten. God is eternal. “I am that I am,” the Pre-Incarnate Christ spake to Moses. Exodus 3:14. Thus, there is no such thing as a begotten God. The very notion of a begotten God is absurd. If God was begotten, then He cannot be eternal. If God is eternal, then he cannot be begotten. Nor did God beget another God. There is one God, not two. There is one God and one God only. “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one!”

 

God begat a Son. God even told us beforehand that that is exactly what He was going to do, and He spoke it as plainly as it can possibly be spoken -

 

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Psalm 2:7

 

We must remember that God is a Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is cohesive to maintain that God cannot be begotten because He is eternal, yet the Son, though Himself eternal, can be begotten. This seems to create a paradox, but the paradox is only apparent, and the reason it is only apparent is due to the relationship of the Trinity. However, we cannot possibly treat the subject of the Trinity exhaustively within the scope of this paper, so instead of addressing this issue in detail at this point, it will be helpful to simply quote a portion of the Westminster Confession, as it codifies this doctrine very succinctly -

 

“In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.” Westminster Confession, Chapter III.

 

Accordingly, there is one God, and therefore to apply the word begotten to the one God is, as stated previously, absurd. Even the more so, because it is evident that the Father cannot be begotten, and since God cannot be referenced without including the Father, it is heretical to apply the word begotten to God. However, within the Godhead the application may be accurately applied to the Son, as the Son is a member of the Godhead who not only can be eternally begotten, but in fact is eternally begotten because He is of one substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost.

 

Thus, the doctrinal implications between begetting a Son and begetting a God are staggering. To press a little further, it was not the Godhead who revealed God; rather it was Jesus Christ who revealed the Godhead. That is the office of the Son. Strictly speaking, it is not the office of the Father to reveal God to man, nor is it the office of the Holy Spirit to reveal God to man. Strictly speaking, the office of revealing God to man belongs solely to the Son, for He “is the image of the invisible God.” Colossians 1:15.

 

Remove a single atom of that right which belongs exclusively to the Son – no matter that a similar statement may be found elsewhere in a corrupted text – and you have diluted the stream, you have affected the doctrine, in spite of what our modern “divines” are selling; yea, you have made a hole in what was before an impenetrable fortress, and certainly no one need be reminded of those holes throughout history which expanded into tunnels and brought down empires.

 

Consequently, we have today either forgotten or ignored or misunderstood the Arian heresy in toto, and the effects have been subtle but devastating, for the heresy that had been silenced in 325 AD was suddenly and enthusiastically resurrected in the Jerusalem Chamber in 1881. The only real trick for the Revisers of 1881 was figuring out how to go about placing “only begotten God” into the English Bible without making it look like the Arian heresy. In other words, the Revisers had to figure out how they were going to mistranslate “monogenes Theos” since the correct translation, “only begotten God,” would be vigorously condemned by the vast majority of Protestant England.

 

At first the Revisers actually inserted the heretical phrase into the verse proper, but then thought better of it and ultimately settled the issue by placing in the margin of John 1:18 this comment – “Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten.” This subtle maneuver might have escaped the eyes of those who did not heed Paul’s admonishment to “watch and be sober,” (1 Thessalonians 5:6), but it did not escape the eye of John Burgon.

 

Burgon came straight to the point - “We are offended at reading (against S. John 1:18) – ‘Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten:’ whereas the ‘authorities’ alluded to read ‘monogenes Theos’ – whether with or without the definite article prefixed – which, as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware, means ‘the only-begotten God,’ and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? Because, we answer, they were ashamed of the expression.” Ibid, pg. 182.

 

Of course, Burgon was absolutely right. What this faithful defender of God’s Holy Writ could not possibly foresee, however, was that this little marginal notation had just surreptitiously dislodged the rock that supported the foundation, had shattered the lock and sundered the bar that had held the floodgates of this ancient internecine heresy at bay for upwards of fifteen centuries. But no longer. With the Revision of 1881 the floodgates had suddenly burst wide open, and once again the Arian heresy settled quietly upon the escarpment of an unwary Christendom.

 

Thus, the assault on the traditional definition of “monogenes” had begun. As for those who contend that there was no assault by the Revisers of 1881 on this passage or on the Greek word “monogenes,” we will simply smile and pass on, for our quarrel is no longer with the Revisers of 1881. Our quarrel is with the Revisers of our present day.

 

Propagated by the influence of “fashionable” scholarship from both East and West, it was this fanaticizing of the imagination that Burgon so fiercely took issue with. He stated in this regard, “In this department of sacred Science, men have been going on too long inventing their facts, and delivering themselves of oracular decrees on the sole responsibility of their own inner consciousness. There is great convenience in such a method certainly – a charming simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to flesh and blood. It dispenses with proof. It furnishes no evidence. It asserts when it ought to argue. It reiterates when it is called upon to explain… By this means every most serious deformity in the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort becomes promoted to honour, and is being thrust on the unsuspecting youth of England as the genuine utterance of the Holy Ghost.” Ibid, pgs. xxvi, xxxi.

 

This perverted practice has not abated. The above description by Burgon fits modern textual critics like a glove. In fact, I dare say that the modern textual critic relies on his own “inner consciousness” more than his mentors of 1881, the only difference being that the modern critic now gives this “science falsely so called” a noble name – he calls it the “Eclectic Method” of textual criticism. As a consequence, the word “monogenes” has suffered far worse at the hands of the Biblical scholars of our day than it ever suffered at the hands of the Revisers in the Jerusalem Chamber over one hundred years ago.

 

Thus, we join with Burgon in proclaiming – “If all this does not constitute a valid reason for descending into the arena of controversy, it would in my judgment be impossible to indicate an occasion when the Christian soldier is called upon to do so – the rather, because certain of those who, from their rank and station in the Church, ought to be the champions of the Truth, are at this time found to be instead among its most vigorous assailants.” Ibid, pgs. xxxi-xxxii.

 

In our defense of the traditional definition of “monogenes” we will confront modern Biblical scholarship and their naked assertions with the most formidable array of evidence imaginable. Not only does the testimony of antiquity thoroughly refute the Anglo-Greek of the seminaries, but the language of native Greeks as well, both present and past, whether it be labeled Koine Greek or Kathomilumeni Greek, irrevocably condemns this ludicrous attempt at redefining a Greek word that is literally unassailable in its traditional definition and etymology. In other words, the voice of antiquity and the historical language of native Greeks themselves bear unequivocal testimony that “monogenes” must be translated according to its traditional definition.

 

In order to fully appreciate this assault on “monogenes,” it will be instructive to briefly take a look at the two competing text types that gave rise to this perversion in John 1:18 in the first place.

 

Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., noted Greek scholar and Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, makes the following comment with respect to manuscript support for this passage -

 

“The external evidence is difficult to evaluate objectively because it is so evenly split between Alexandrian and Byzantine readings and one’s view toward the relative importance of these two texttypes will probably decide one’s evaluation of the external evidence.”

 

In the first place, Wallace is far from accurate in his assertion that the external evidence “is so evenly split.” In fact, we wonder if he can be serious.

 

The external evidence favoring the Traditional Text’s “only begotten son” is, in a word, massive. To begin with, virtually all of the Greek Lectionaries support the Traditional Text, as well as all of the Greek Cursive manuscripts, with the exception of a very few. In addition to the Lectionaries and Cursives, the Uncial Greek manuscripts supporting the Traditional Text, the Old Latin manuscripts supporting the Traditional Text, the versions supporting the Traditional Text, and the Patristic citations supporting the Traditional Text – these all vastly outnumber the handful of Alexandrian witnesses headed up by the Roman Catholic Manuscript Vaticanus B, which favors “only begotten God.” Further, this support for the Traditional Text enjoys early testimony, widespread geographical testimony, and numerically and qualitatively superior ecclesiastical testimony. We therefore marvel at the assertion that the external evidence “is so evenly split.”

 

Secondly, if Wallace is accurate when he asserts that, “one’s view toward the relative importance of these two textypes will probably decide one’s evaluation of the external evidence,” then why did UBS committee member Allen Wikgren, who favors the Alexandrian Text, make the following statement? – “It is doubtful that the author would have written monogenes Theos, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition…” Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2^nd edition, pg. 170.

 

Wallace continues -

 

“Internally uios fits the immediate context more readily. Theos is much more difficult, but also explains the origin of the other reading (uios), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found uios in the text he was copying would alter it to Theos. On the whole neither reading seriously alters the meaning of the text.” Daniel B. Wallace, The New English Translation Bible, Footnote 45.

 

It is no surprise that Wallace admits that uios “fits the immediate context more readily,” because that fact is simply inescapable. What surprises us is Wallace’s poverty of doctrinal comprehension, though to be fair, we must point out that this poverty is not confined to Wallace; rather, it is pandemic throughout mainstream Biblical scholarship. In any case, we have already demonstrated that the Alexandrian witnesses in this passage have excavated the leaven of Arias, so to make the statement that “neither reading seriously alters the meaning of the text” is certainly something that should bother anyone who has been influenced by the dicta of modern scholarship.

 

As for Wallace’s actual puzzlement over the issue, viz., “why a scribe who found uios in the text he was copying would alter it to Theos,” we can only reply that this very question was answered about eighteen hundred years before Wallace ever asked it.

 

Thus, had modern textual critics chosen to rely on historical fact rather than their own “inner consciousness,” they could have easily seen why a scribe would replace uios with Theos, for Burgon, Miller, Nolan, and others had already traced the whole problem back to Valentinus the Gnostic. I’ll let Burgon once again tell it in his own words –

 

“It will be remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ &c.; a statement which Valentinus was willing to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch (Valentinus) and his followers denied that ‘the Word’ is also the Son of God. As if in order to bar the door against this pretense, St. John announces (ver. 18) that ‘the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him’: thus establishing the identity of the Word and the Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it?” The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, pg.215.

 

In other words, Valentinus readily accepted that Jesus and the Word were the same person. What he and his followers denied, however, was that Jesus and the Word were the same person as the Son of God. To say it another way, Valentinus believed that Jesus was the Logos – the Word, but Valentinus did not believe that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. This of course led to only one conclusion, and that conclusion came to life in the classic Gnostic perversion with its doctrine of “intermediary gods.”

 

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains –

 

“Valentinus, in whose teaching Gnosticism culminated, taught that Wisdom was the last of a series of Eons which emanated from the Primal Being, and the Logos was an emanation of the first two principles which issued from God – Reason, Faith… In the Valentinian system, Christ and the Holy Spirit were two eons.”

 

The liberal scholar Philip Schaff, an esteemed colleague of Westcott and Hort, was certainly no friend of the Traditional Text, and yet in his “History of the Christian Church” he further concedes that Valentinus, who lived early in the second century, was heavily involved in the corruption of the Sacred Deposit –

 

“The Gnostics of the second century, especially the Valentinians and Basilidians, made abundant use of the fourth Gospel, which alternately offended them by its historical realism, and attracted them by its idealism and mysticism… Valentinus himself (according to Tertullian) tried either to explain it away, or he put his own meaning into it… In the Gnostic systems, especially that of Valentinus, “pleroma” signifies the intellectual and spiritual world, including all Divine powers or aeons, in opposition to the “kenoma,” i.e., the void, the emptiness, the material world… They included in the pleroma a succession of emanations from the Divine abyss, which form the links between the infinite and the finite; and they lowered the dignity of Christ by making him simply the highest of those intermediate aeons.” First Period: The Church Under The Apostles, Chapter XII. (emphasis added).

 

In the next section of his massive work, Schaff narrows it down even further –

 

“Valentinus or Valentine is the author of the most profound and luxuriant, as well as the most influential and best known of the Gnostic systems… He was probably of Egyptian Jewish descent and Alexandrian education… He made much use of the Prologue of John’s Gospel and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians; but by a wild exegesis he put his own pantheistic and mythological fancies into the apostolic words, such as Logos, Only Begotten, Truth, Life, Pleroma, Ecclesia… Tertullian says his heresy ‘fashioned itself into as many shapes as a courtesan who usually changes and adjusts her dress every day.’” Second Period: Ante-Nicene Christianity, Chapter XI. (emphasis added).

 

Thus, this persuasive second century Gnostic, like Arias who came after him, proclaimed that Jesus was a begotten God – not a begotten Son – but a begotten God, not eternal, but a lesser God begotten, because he was of a lower order and of a different aeon than the “Supreme” God. And since the Valentinians could never admit that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, they were faced with only one alternative concerning the fourth Gospel, for the Apostle John, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, foresaw the heresy which must certainly arise in an attempt to denigrate his Lord and Master – the same Lord and Master of whom John and his fellows had earlier observed with astonishment, whispering, “What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!” Matthew 8:27.

 

With the Spirit of Jesus Christ in him and upon him, John testified that whoever has seen Jesus Christ has seen the Father. Valentinus wrested John’s words and testified that Jesus was only one God of many – begotten, not eternal; created, not existing.

 

And so it happens, that by adhering to historical fact, we can see how easily Valentinus and those who followed him perverted the very doctrines that the Apostle John so gloriously expounded while still in his earthly tabernacle, especially that doctrine which gave as much honour to Jesus Christ the Son as to His Hallowed Father in Heaven. “What else, indeed,” we echo, “could the Valentinians do with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it?”

 

It should now be obvious “why a scribe who found uios in the text he was copying would alter it to Theos.” Especially in Alexandria, for Alexandria was the undisputed hotbed of Gnosticism. In other words, Alexandria, Egypt was the very seat of Gnosticism itself. Couple that fact with the fact that it is the Alexandrian witnesses which have “monogenes Theos” instead of “o monogenes uios” and suddenly the whole picture becomes perfectly clear.

 

We trust Wallace has had his question answered. But possibly not. Let us recount the pronouncement of our Lord Jesus –

 

“And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:” Matthew 13:14.

 

Having thus taken pains to explore history, we nevertheless affirm most strenuously that Wallace’s question was ill-conceived in the first place, for the ipse dixit of mortal men who derive their conclusions – not from evidence and “the good hand of God upon them,” or from the Holy Ghost “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” – but rather from “enticing words of man’s wisdom,” and an intellect which contends that revelation is to be unearthed almost solely in the grammar and syntax of linguistic study – such misguided efforts, we say, have no place in the field of so solemn an enterprise. It is not the work of a noble poet or an acclaimed author that we are treating with here. It is the Word of the Living God that stands before us, and it is God’s Word, not man’s, that shall be opened in Judgment and that shall determine which members of the human race will be invited into Heaven and which will be thrust into Hell.

 

The Eclectic Method of modern scholarship is “Textual Criticism Made Easy,” certainly, with its charming simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to flesh and blood, with its propensity for dispensing with proof, its refusal to furnish evidence, its stubbornness to assert when it ought to argue, and its reiteration when it is called upon to explain, but this pseudo-scholarship is erected on quicksand, and it is doomed by the very foundation upon which it stands.

 

The fruit of modern Bible translations and the spiritual poverty throughout modern Christendom is ample proof of that, for there is a famine of sound doctrine in the land today. The high Christology which was based on the Traditional Text and which dominated the Reformation has virtually disappeared, replaced by hollow utterances that lack power and demonstration of the Spirit, wherein the true oracles of Heaven emanate, for the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power, and Jesus Christ is the power of God. And yet, the high Christology of the Reformation and of the Traditional Text has been dismantled so slowly, so subtly, and so masterfully that the vast majority of those who profess to be Christians don’t even know it. They have been anesthetized by scholars and pastors who have assured them that altering God’s Word is a science, assured them that the Bible is plenarily inspired while with the other side of their mouth vowing that removing or redefining individual words or phrases is nothing to be concerned about, assured them that all of the various translations “basically say the same thing,” whereas, in fact, they don’t.

 

“How can you hope ever to convince or convict,” the indefatigable Dean of Chichester marvelled, “if you begin by acquainting your adversary that it is only for the substantial verity of Scripture that you claim Inspiration; the verbal details being quite a different matter? See you not that you put into his hands a weapon with which he will infallibly slay yourself?” Inspiration And Interpretation, Sermon IV, pg. 118.

 

How much more of a weapon, we might add, when the announcement is made, “But this other translation says this,” when invariably this other translation has been dipped in that well wherein the River of Life has been poisoned at its sacred source.”

 

But handling the Word of God deceitfully doesn’t seem to bother the mainstream anymore, for the lines of doctrine have been completely blurred, and therefore unlike David, no one asks, “Is there not a cause?” This is the fruit of the Eclectic Method of textual criticism.

 

Howbeit, we will not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour. When handling the Word of Life, we must insist upon far more than the individual caprice of textual critics run amok, more than the scholar’s tyrannical demand that his own unsupported allegations shall reign supreme. Let Burgon be heard once again –

 

“The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who feel rather than think: who imagine rather than reason: who rely on a supposed verifying faculty of their own, of which they are unable to render an intelligible account; and who have the misfortune to conceive themselves possessed of a power of divining the Original Text, which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their self-deception were not so exceedingly serious… For, to speak plainly, we never before met with such a singular tissue of magisterial statements, unsupported by a particle of rational evidence, as we meet with here.” The Revision Revised, pg. 109, 247.

 

As we saw, Wallace embraced all that Burgon just condemned. Instead of relying on recorded history, Wallace trusted in his own verifying faculty when he ignored the massive evidence supporting the Traditional Text and when he imagined a difficulty that had already been explained a hundred times over for the past seventeen or eighteen centuries. Even after admitting that uios “fits the immediate context more readily,” Wallace nevertheless relied on his own self-evolved power of divining the Original Text, in spite of the fact that he knows very well that the character of the Alexandrian witnesses which support “monogenes Theos” is depraved throughout, for – unlike the Traditional Text – the Alexandrian witnesses, headed up by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, have proven themselves liars in literally thousands of places, riddled with incontestable errors – geographical inaccuracies, historical inaccuracies, scientific inaccuracies, doctrinal inaccuracies – nay, doctrinal absurdities, such as Jesus being killed by the soldier with the spear instead of dying supernaturally of His own volition and with power – ad infinitum. Or, to quote Burgon, who spent many years collating these manuscripts –

 

“Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” The Revision Revised, pg. 16.

 

These are the very manuscripts that modern Biblical scholars bow to; these are the very manuscripts that modern Bible translations are based on. Such is the Eclectic Method of textual criticism. It was so in 1881; it is so now. Only worse. And it is waxing darker every day.

 

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1.

 

We dare say that the Apostle John not only did not write “monogenes Theos,” but in fact he would have been the last person on earth to do so. That is why throughout the Johannine corpus (Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation), there is never an instance when John refers to Jesus as anything other than the Son in relation to God or the Father. This will be fully demonstrated in Part II.

 

Simply put, therefore, “monogenes Theos” is not only demonstrably a Gnostic depravation, it is bad doctrine through and through. Its only value lies in the apostasy of this present evil age – an age, we might add, whose time is just about run out – and in the tuition of the Antichrist who will no doubt make coinage out of this very doctrine, woven inextricably together with other subtle perversions cloistered in modern Bible translations, to employ his rise to rule.

 

And yet, for those of us who truly belong to Jesus Christ, be assured that we may declare confidently in the Spirit, “Let us lift up our heads, for our redemption draweth nigh!” Luke 21:28

 

Part II will take up with the further vilification of “monogenes” by contemporary Biblical scholarship and its corrosive effects on modern Christianity.

 

“Vanquished by THE WORD Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against THE WORD Written… My apology for bestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is David’s when he was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of battle,—’Is there not a cause?’” John Burgon