The only begotten from the Father

[rgprice]

John 1:14 reads: 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Of course we hear often, even in orthodox texts, that Jesus is the "only begotten" son of God. This is a somewhat strange concept. Of course there is an orthodox interpretation for the passage, but there isn't really anything in the Jewish scriptures that prepares us for this statement.

Yet, if the god of the Jews is the Creator, and the Highest God took no hand in the Creation, then the Highest God has not "begotten" anything. Even the Creator is not "his son". We know that there are various Gnostic systems that explain the existence of the Creator God as distinct from the Highest God and not "begotten" by him.

So it seems to me that this phrase, "only begotten son of God" makes more sense in the context of claiming that Jesus is the son of the Highest God, who played no hand in the Creation. This is contrasted with the idea that Adam and all mankind were "begotten" by the Creator God.

So this idea is that all humans come from the Creator God, but this being - Jesus - is the only being Created by the "Good God".

Of course this contrasts with other parts of the opening of John, but I'm exploring the idea that this comes from an earlier layer. The idea that Jesus is the "only one" from the Father seems to be a much broader claim than the idea that Jesus is merely the only direct "son" of God, it is that Jesus is the only creation of God at all.

[lsayre]

Michael Heiser argued that Jesus was not the only 'begotten' son of God, but rather he was a 'one of a kind' or 'unique' son of God.

[rgprice]

Either way, the point is that this can be interpreted as indicating that the Jewish Creator is NOT the son of the Good God. It is like saying "this one is MY son, that one is NOT".

Such a reading seems to bring more context to the phrase.

[MrMacSon]

John 1:14

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

"of an/the only begotten = μονογενοῦς (monogenous) : https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-14.htm

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3439: μονογενής

μονογενής, μονογενές (μόνος and γένος) (Cicero,unigena; Vulg. (in Lukeunicus, elsewhere) and in ecclesiastical writingsunigenitus), single of its kind, only (A. V. only-begotten); used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents), Hesiod theog. 426, 448; Herodotus 7, 221; Plato, Critias 113 d.; Josephus, Antiquities 1, 13, 1; 2, 7, 4; μονογενές τέκνον πατρί, Aeschylus Ag. 898. So in the Scriptures: Hebrews 11:17; μονογενῆ εἶναι τίνι (to be one's only son or daughter), Judges 11:34; Tobit 3:15; Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38; (cf. Westcott on Epistles of John, pp. 162ff). Hence, the expression ὁ μονογενής υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ and υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ μονογονης, John 3:16, 18; John 1:18 (see below); 1 John 4:9;

μονογενής παρά πατρός, John 1:14 (some take this generally, owing to the omission of the article (cf. Green, pp. 48f)), used of Christ, denotes the only son of God or one who in the sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren.

He is so spoken of by John not because ὁ λόγος, which was ἐνσαρκωθεις in him, was eternally generated by God the Father (the orthodox interpretation), or came forth from the being of God just before the beginning of the world (Subordinationism), but because by the incarnation (ἐνσαρκωσις) of the λόγος in him: he is of nature or essentially Son of God, and so in a very different sense from that in which men are made by him τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ (John 1:13). For since, in the writings of John, the title ὁ ἱυος τοῦ Θεοῦ is given only to the historic Christ so called, neither the Logos alone nor Jesus alone, but ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐνσαρκωθεις: or Jesus, through the λόγος united with God, is ὁ μονογενής υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ.

The reading μονογενής Θεός in John 1:18 ((without the article before μονογενής) — which is supported by no inconsiderable weight of ancient testimony, received into the text by Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, defended with much learning by Dr. Hort ("On μονογενής Θεός in Scripture and Tradition in his Two Dissertations" Camb. and Lond. 1876), and seems not improbable to Harnack (in the Theol. Lit.-Zeit. for 1876, p. 541ff) (and Weiss (in Meyer 6te Aufl. at the passage)), but is foreign to John's mode of thought and speech (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), dissonant and harsh — appears to owe its origin to a dogmatic zeal which broke out soon after the early days of the church (see articles on the reading by Prof. Abbot in the Bib. Sacr. for Oct. 1861 and in the Unitarian Rev. for June 1875 (in the latter copious references to other discussions of the same passage are given); see also Prof. Drummond in the Theol. Rev. for Oct. 1871). Further, see Grimm, Exgt. Hdbch. on Sap., p. 152f; (Westcott as above).

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
only begotten, child.
From monos and ginomai; only-born, i.e. Sole -- only (begotten, child).

https://biblehub.com/greek/3439.htm

Either way, the point is that this can be interpreted as indicating that the Jewish Creator is NOT the son of the Good God. It is like saying "this one is MY son, that one is NOT".

Such a reading seems to bring more context to the phrase.

• I agree

[MrMacSon]

ἐνσαρκωθεις^ is an interesting word.

That Thayer's commentary says

."He" is so spoken of by John [μονογενής παρά πατρός, John 1:14]...because by the incarnation (ἐνσαρκωσις) of the λόγος in him: he is of nature or essentially Son of God, and so in a very different sense from that in which men are made by him, 'τέκνα* [child, offspring] τοῦ Θεοῦ' (John 1:13)

Neither ἐνσαρκωσις or ἐνσαρκωθεις are easy to find via an internet search (most if not all just give links to articles about μονογενής (monogenés))

ἐνσαρκωσις —> ἐνσαρκωθεις is an elevation of a theological concept through the suffix -θεις

* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%C ... ient_Greek; or
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%C ... E%BF#Greek

[rgprice]

This may also bring context to the idea that the world was made by the Son.

Yes, of course Philo provides us with another way to understand the creation of the world through the Word, but it seems that the concepts of Philo may have been brought to bear here precisely in order to adapt the scriptures to a Jewish context.

In other words, if the Gnostic concept was that the world was created by the Jewish Creator God, who is not the son of the Good God, the retort to this within the context of scriptures that seemed to separate Highest God from Demiurge, was to say that the Son was the Demiurge, and thus the Creator.

Saying that the Son was the Creator was away of taking the Creation away from some other Demiurge within the context of scriptures that indicated that the Highest God was not the Creator.

So, in the Gnostic readings we had a Good Highest God, an "evil" Demiurge, and a Son of the Good Highest God. A way of "orthodizing" this was to eliminate the evil Demiurge and put the Son in his place.

[MrMacSon]

if the Gnostic concept was that the world was created by the Jewish Creator God

I'm not sure about that:

1. there is no one or set 'Gnostic' concept of creation
2. Marcion (+/- others) said the Jewish God was just the Creator but, iiuc, could not have been a benevolent Good god so there had to be another supreme god who was

This may also bring context to the idea that the world was made by the Son.

Was it? ie., was the world said to have been 'made by the Son'?

... the retort to this, within the context of scriptures that seemed to separate Highest God from Demiurge, was to say that the Son was the Demiurge, and thus the Creator.

• I don't think anyone said that.

Don't forget the Demiurge was a platonic concept.

Re Valentinian theology, April Deconick has recently said this:

Sophia produced a son, Christ, who does not stay with her, but journeys back to the family of Gods in the Pleroma. He, however, leaves behind his shadow. From Christ’s shadow, Sophia creates a second son (the Demiurge or Craftsman who is identified with the Creator God in the Jewish scriptures) and the “left-hand ruler” (the Devil).

The Demiurge takes the substances that had congealed out of Sophia’s raw emotions and tears (passion, desire, fear, anxiety) and uses them as the building blocks for the material world and human body. From her remorse, her son fashions the soul (Greek: psyche). The human spirit (Greek: pneuma), birthed from Sophia’s capacity to love Jesus, ends up trapped in the human soul and body through a divine trick, when Sophia implants it in Adam without the Demiurge’s knowledge.

modified slightly from Deconick, Comparing Christianities: An Introduction to Early Christianity, Wiley-Blackwell, August 2023

Deconick says, perhaps we should be studying patterns of demiurgy (cf. patterns of 'gnosticism'). She writes:

When it comes to DEMIURGY (who created the universe; from Greek: demiurgos, craftsman), the patterns are highly complex, involving many moving parts. At the most basic level, there are two potential patterns. In the AUTOCRAT PATTERN, the creator God creates the universe by himself. In the ADMINISTRATOR PATTERN, God creates the universe using an assistant or assistants like angels or attendant Gods. Often the administrators are envisioned as mental aspects of God (e.g. God’s reason or logos; God’s wisdom or sophia). These usually are described as powers (Greek: dynameis or exousia) or angels.

Demiurgy becomes complicated when we start considering the nature of the creator figure or figures (Figure 1.13). If the creator figure or figures are benevolent and conscientious, we are dealing with the CARETAKER DEMIURGE. If the figure or figures are malicious, we are faced with the VILLAIN DEMIURGE. When the universe is created by a rebellious figure or figures, the REBEL DEMIURGE is playing out. When the universe is created by a figure or figures who are fools or do not know any better, the IGNORANT DEMIURGE is in control. Closely related is the IMPAIRED DEMIURGE. These creator figures are somehow diminished in their capacity, flawed, or deficient. This deficiency might be a character flaw (e.g. narcissism; erogeneity; lust; arrogance) or a flaw in their own generation (e.g. they are copies of an original). Sometimes the figure or figures are operating in discriminatory ways, showing favoritism or partiality to some of their creatures. This is the PATRON DEMIURGE. Sometimes the demiurge creates to rule his universe with a set of laws that require him to judge human compliance, to reward and punish his creatures as a high court justice might. This is the JUSTICE DEMIURGE. To complicate matters, none of these descriptions is mutually exclusive. For instance, a demiurge may be an ignoramus and also impaired. Or the demiurge may be a caretaker while also a patron or a justice.

In all Christian systems, the created universe is a place of evil, although what evil is and what is evil varies, as are explanations for the origins of evil. Demons exist in all Christian systems as powerful evil supernatural beings who play a part in ruling the universe, sometimes even as the demiurge. They control human beings, tempting them to sin by inciting the passions (i.e. lust, anger, gluttony, etc.). They possess human beings and make them sick. They incite people to conflict and war. This means that Christians in antiquity looked at the human body with suspicion and the material world around them as a potential booby trap.

This also means that most Christians were very conflicted about their bodies and the world. While some thought that the universe was created with good intention and others malicious intention, this did not mean that the “good intention” Christians saw the material world and their bodies as good in contrast to the “evil intention” Christians who saw the world and their bodies as evil. Rather Christians who thought the universe was created with good intention, also thought that Satan or the Devil ruled the world and demons were all around them wreaking havoc. Those who thought the world was created with malicious intention thought that the creator God ruled the world and demons were all around them wreaking havoc. In both cases, the physical world and the human body are viewed as the playground of the demons.

The universe that these demiurgic figures create is always a place of suffering and death, although the explanations for why this is the case (a.k.a. THEODICY) and what humans are supposed to do about it are highly dependent on the interaction of the theological and demiurgic patterns that each Christian movement assembled for itself. At the core of these various explanations for why the universe is a place of suffering and death however are two basic options. Either a God or Gods are responsible (FAULTY-GOD PATTERN) or humans are responsible (FAULTY-HUMAN PATTERN). These patterns were not mutually exclusive, but could be combined. The Christians did not consider the no-fault pattern (as in “shit happens”).

When it comes down to it, Christian movements are all about building salvific or soteriological (from Greek: soter, savior) systems that allow Christians liberation from demonic control here on earth and in their afterlives. This afterlife was imagined as a utopian world that would be fashioned following the eschaton when the world and demonic rule ended. The soteriological options that the Christians developed depended on their explanations for evil and preferred patterns of THEODICY (Figure 1.14).

All Christian systems promoted a God who intervened in history to save humanity. In all systems, Jesus’ death is instrumental in this act of salvation. All Christians believed salvation was exclusive to them as God’s elect, and that, in order to be redeemed, it was necessary to join their group, participate in their rituals, and live a life that reflected their redeemed status. The question that the groups debated was whether humans had to achieve their salvation through human actions too. Does salvation depend on whether certain laws were observed that God required them to follow (Figure 1.15)? Christian systems that answered affirmatively represent the ACHIEVEMENT PATTERN (humans have to do something to achieve their salvation). If answered negatively, the system represents the GIFT PATTERN (salvation is a gift of God’s grace alone).

[DCHindley]

The Word is not the only thing ever called "only begotten."

Ant 20.2 HOW HELENA THE QUEEN OF ADIABENE AND HER SON IZATES, EMBRACED THE JEWISH RELIGION; AND HOW HELENA SUPPLIED THE POOR WITH CORN, WHEN THERE WAS A GREAT FAMINE AT JERUSALEM
Sect. 1. ABOUT this time it was that Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion following: Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, who had also the name of Bazeus, fell in love with his sister Helena, and took her to be his wife, and begat her with child. But as he was in bed with her one night, he laid his hand upon his wife's belly, and fell asleep, and seemed to hear a voice, which bid him take his hand off his wife's belly, and not hurt the infant that was therein, which, by God's providence, would be safely born, and have a happy end. This voice put him into disorder; so he awaked immediately, and told the story to his wife; and when his son was born, he called him Izates. He had indeed Monobazus, his elder brother, by Helena also, as he had other sons by other wives besides. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten son* Izates, which was the origin of that envy which his other brethren, by the same father, bore to him;

The word here is monogenes, which is same word that is used in the prologue to the Gospel of John to describe the place of the Word with relation to the person of the Father. So, Izates, despite having an older brother by the same mother, was considered the Father's "only begotten" son. This is really different than early Christian theological talk. The Christians, the Logos was the only begotten son of the Father, but he was not going to succeed the Father. Izates, on the other hand, was favored by his Father to be his successor. Oil & water.

DCH

[Charles Wilson]

Britannicus was the only begotten son of Claudius - Nero was the adopted son.
By way the beautiful Messalina, of which:

Acts 5: 9 (In Part):
"Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."

Which appears to come from:

Tacitus, Annals, Book 11:

"Narcissus rushed out, and ordered the centurions and the tribunes, who were on guard, to accomplish the deed of blood. Such, he said, was the emperor's bidding. Evodus, one of the freedmen, was appointed to watch and complete the affair. Hurrying on before with all speed to the gardens, he found Messalina stretched upon the ground, while by her side sat Lepida, her mother, who, though estranged from her daughter in prosperity, was now melted to pity by her inevitable doom, and urged her not to wait for the executioner..."

Titus was much attached to Britannicus and, as the story goes had a bite of something B was eating. B died and Titus got very sick and nearly died. Titus recovered and ordered a golden statue of Britannicus made.

Puts John 3: 16 in an entirely different light...

[Leucius Charinus]

1. there is no one or set 'Gnostic' concept of ceatiron

Setting aside the claims of the heresiologists and examining the extant "Gnostic" manuscripts themselves (especially those in the NHL and those related) it seems reasonably clear (to me anyway) that the creation account in Plato's "Timaeus" is some form of blue-print.

Or to put it another way: what aspects or elements of the Gnostic' concept of creation is found outside the broad scope of Plato's "Timaeus"?

Nature of the physical world
Purpose of the universe
Properties of the universe
The creation of the world-soul
The elements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_( ... s'_account