John 1:18

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search
John 1

(Textus Receptus, Novum Testamentum, Theodore Beza, 4th folio edition. Geneva. 1598)

(King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition 1900)

(King James Version 2016 Edition, 2016)



See Also Monogenes


Only Begotten God?

Many modern Greek dictionaries falsely define the Greek monogenes as “unique” or “one of a kind” or “only”. Because Westcott and Hort were faced with the false teaching of God being “begotten” or “born” from something, they had to invent a new definition of “monogenes” (only begotten), so they changed it to “unique” or “one of a kind” to fit in with the Vaticanus manuscripts error. Monogenes is from "monos" and "genos" meaning exactly - "only" & "begotten". This is elementary to all who know real Greek, to etymologists, and historians. But because there is a bias to cover us for their favorite manuscript in John 1:18 without making known the utter corruptness of Codex Vaticanus, they redefined it to fit in. After a while this new definition permeated new versions, so that now in most places “only begotten” is called “one and only” or “unique” in many common verses such a John 3:16.

Many times modern versions supporters and enemies of the KJV and Textus Receptus are up in arms about a few minority readings in the KJV, even though most minority readings in the KJV have Latin witnesses, early church father quotations, and early versions as evidence of their preservation throughout the ages. But these same people, such as Dan Wallace, James White, and other textual critics then turn around completely and accept minority readings that blur and change doctrine. Because in this portion 99% of all extant manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus and versions based upon it such as the King James Version, it is almost not worth a mention, but because of the flood of new versions and the illiterate state of the professing church, this needs to be addressed.

Modern pseudo scholarship and many bible translators now claim that monogenês is not related to the verb gennao ("begotten"), but to ginomai ("to be").

Internal Evidence

Ho monogenês huios is consistent with John's usage elsewhere and fits the immediate context (Son...Father) better than the other variants. Monogenês theos is inconsistent and has a rare one time occurrence in the NT. This is called a a hapax legomenon. Textual critics prefer readings that are not unique, unless compelled by strong external evidence otherwise.

Scribal Error?

The words theos and uios have phonetic similarities. Perhaps a scribe was writing the verse, and when the word "theos" was sounded, he heard "weeos." This would seem like the most practical answer to this problem. But because textual critics love to corrupt the words of God, instead of following the logic that this is a scribal error or a deliberate corruption, they lean towards the heretical reading.

A Deliberate Gnostic Inclusion?

The Gnostics taught that Christ was a begotten god, created by God the Father, whom they called the Unbegotten God.

A Forgery?

The Vaticanus may well be a forgery like Sinaiticus is turning out to be. This would have to be scientifically proven to be so, and the other manuscripts would also have to be examined. This cannot be concluded to be so until these tests are done.


The Codex Vaticanus has the corruption μονογενὴς θεός (only begotten God) here in John 1:18 instead of the usual μονογενὴς υἱός (only begotten Son). Many modern versions have redefined monogenes to mean unique or one and only in the place of the historical reading of only begotten.
The Codex Vaticanus has the corruption μονογενὴς θεός (only begotten God) here in John 1:18 instead of the usual μονογενὴς υἱός (only begotten Son). Many modern versions have redefined monogenes to mean unique or one and only in the place of the historical reading of only begotten.

The Codex Vaticanus has the corruption μονογενὴς θεός (only begotten God) here in John 1:18 whereas most manuscripts read μονογενὴς υἱός (only begotten Son).

Support for the reading 'uios' ('son')

P66 and P75 both read θεός. In the Alexandrian tradition, scribes used Nomina Sacra abbreviations (ΥC/ΘC). ΥC for son and ΘC for God.

The majority of existing Greek cursive manuscripts read monogenes heios. The reading contained in the majority of uncials (such as A, C3, K, W, Q, Y, D, P, X, and 063), Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, and the Old Syrian also support the reading monogenes heios. [1]

- Uncials:

θεος−−a*, B, C*, L
υιος−−a2, A, C3, W, Δ, Θ, Ψ, X, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V

- Miniscules:

υιος−−all cursive mss except one, several hundred in number

- Lectionaries: majority;

- Ancient versions: several Old Latin mss. (including "a," 4th century), the Vulgate, the Curetonian version of the Old Syriac (3rd-4th century), the Harclean and Palestinian Syriac, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, the earlier of two Georgian versions (9th century), and the Old Church Slavonic version;

The Ancient Versions

θεος−−Syriac Peshitta (2nd century); Harclean Syriac in the margin (ca. 616); Coptic (3rd or 4th century); and a revision of the Georgian (10th century)
υιος−−Old Latin (2nd century); Vulgate (4th century); Curetonian Syriac (ca. 4th century); Harclean Syriac in the text (ca. 616); Palestinian Syriac (6th century); an earlier revision of the Georgian (9th century); Armenian (uncertain date); Ethiopic (6th century); Slavonic (9th century)

- Church fathers: Hippolytus (d. 235), Letter of Hymenaeus (about 268), Alexander, Eustathius, Chrysostom, Theodore, Tertullian, Jerome, and countless others.

Old Latin

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18 read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

Church Fathers

Many early church writers quote the verse as it stands in the Textus Receptus including Theodotus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Eustathius, Eusebius, Hegemonius, Ambrosiaster, Faustinus, Athanasius, Titus-Bostra, Gregory Nazianzus, Ambrose, Chysostom, Synesius, Jerome, Theodore, Augustine, Proclus, Varimadum, Theodoret, Fulgentius, John-Damascus and Priscillian. A large number of the Church Fathers, quoted the verse with “Son,” and not “God.” This is especially weighty when one considers that Tertullian argued aggressively for the incarnation and is credited with being the one who developed the concept of “one God in three persons.” If Tertullian had had a text that read “God” in John 1:18, he certainly would have quoted it, but instead he always quoted texts that read “Son.”

No Latin Father has ever quoted or alluded to John 1:18 with the phrase “unigenitus Deus” (only-begotten God).


In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,

"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath 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." (Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

Archelaus Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes:

Furthermore, there is but one only inconvertible substance, the divine substance, eternal and invisible, as is known to all, and as is also borne out by this scripture: "No man hath seen God at any time, save the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father."


And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." (Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians)


and in these, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (Origen Against Celsus Book II)


"Well, (I must again ask) what God does he mean? 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. (Tertullian Against Praxeas)


"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him:

'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300).


Augustine (430 AD) wrote:

"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him." (Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3).

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

Chalcedon Creed 451 A.D.

Chalcedon Creed 451 A.D.:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages.

Athanasian Creed 500 A.D.

Athanasian Creed 500 A.D.:

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.
The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

Reformation Period Confessions

Belgic Confession 1561
We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God eternally begotten, not made nor created, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father. (The Belgic Confession 1561)
39 Articles on Religion 1571
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten form everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father. (The 39 Articles on Religion 1571 Article II)
Westminster Confession
"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.)
London Baptist Confession 1689
In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. (London Baptist Confession 1689 )

King James Translation

Many criticize the King James Version by pointing to Hebrews 11:17 claiming the word should be "unique":

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son."

The usual argument is that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at the time, but that Ishmael had already been born of Abraham's union with Hagar.

But a brief look at Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine only son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

Dean Burgon

Dean Burgon believed that the reason that the Revised Version committee including Westcott and Hort did not include it in their version because they were ashamed of the reading:

“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.” (John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester College, The Revision Revised, pg. 182.)

Burgon also gives us some insigth into possible reasons for the texts corruption:

"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?" (John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester College, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, pg.215.)

Philip Schaff

Even the liberal scholar Philip Schaff agreed:

"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." Philip Schaff, First Period: The Church Under The Apostles, Chapter XII. (emphasis added).
"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.’" Philip Schaff, Second Period: Ante-Nicene Christianity, Chapter XI. (emphasis added).

George Vance Smith

Most modern version supporters claim that no doctrines are affected by the changes of modern versions, George Vance Smith was a Unitarian scholar who worked on the RV translation committee and wrote a book explaining that the new RV readings favor Unitarian doctrines. He called it: Texts and margins of the revised New Testament: affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed. He shares some candid thoughts about the doctrinal impact or, potential doctrinal impact of changes in the RV, some of which reflect changes in the base-text and some of which are translational.

Smith stated in relation to the John 1:18 reading "only-begotten God" which the ERV revisers only placed in the margin that "there is nothing at all unlikely in the supposition that this may be the true original reading of this verse" (p. 19). Yet he nevertheless regarded that reading as "a greater blow than the popular or orthodox theology of our day would have been able to bear" (p. 17).

This reading which Smith considered inimicable to orthodox theology is now printed as the primary reading in the Nestle and UBS editions, and as a result dominates in modern English translations.

A.T. Roberston

“The best old Greek manuscripts read monogenes theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text.” (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1932), 18.)

Allen Wikgren

It is not only supporters of the Textus Receptus or King James Version that believe "only begotten God" is a scribal error. There is also division between modern textual critics as to whether μονογενὴς θεός should be the correct reading.

Nestle-Aland Committee Member Allen Wikgren who served on the UBS-4, quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, pg. 170.

"It is doubtful that the author (i.e., John) would have written monogenes theos, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition."

Bart Ehrman

Former textual critic now agnostic, and associate with Bruce Metzger Bart Ehrman, taught that the reason that the text was changed from “Son” to “God” was to provide “extra evidence” for the existence of the created concept of the Trinity. By the second century, an intense debate about whether or not Jesus was God raged in Alexandria, Egypt, the place where all the texts that read “God” originated. The stakes were high in these debates, and excommunication, banishment or worse could be the lot of the “loser.” Changing a text or two to in order to “help” in a debate was a tactic proven to have occurred. An examination of all the evidence shows that it is probable that “the only begotten son” is the original reading of John 1:18. For a much more detailed accounting of why the word “Son” should be favored over the word “God,” see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, pp. 78-82)

Modern Versions

Most modern bible versions such as the NIV and NASB, that are translated corrupted texts read “God” instead of “Son.”

  • NASB: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
  • ESV: “No one has every seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."


The corrupt NIV is continuously changing:

NIV 1973 - "No man has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
NIV 1984 - "No one has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
NIV 2011 - "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
  • NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"
  • TNIV 2001, NIV 2011 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son".

Dr. Edwin H. Palmer, who served as the executive secretary of the Committee on Bible Translation for the New International Version, had this to say concerning this passage:

"A striking case of where the KJB, following bad Greek copies of the original text, changed the original is (sic) John 1:18. The KJB says, 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, scripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus 'Son.' Using the archaic language of the KJB, the verse should read: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' Or to say it in a modern and elegant way: 'No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known' [NIV]." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation Kenneth L. Barker editor, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986, p. 143).

New World Translation

New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses in 2013 says:

"No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten god, who is at the Father's side, he has explained him."

English Standard Version

The ESV has:

No one has ever seen God; the only God,[a] who is at the Father's side,[b] he has made him known.
ESV Footnotes:
a. John 1:18 Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
b. John 1:18 Greek in the bosom of the Father

Note that is says in the footnotes “some manuscripts the only Son” which contradicts the external evidence, as the reading of the only Son is vastly the majority reading, not just “some manuscripts.”


The note on Dan Wallace's NET bible says:

38tn Or "of the unique one." Although this word is often translated "only begotten," such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham's only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means "one-of-a-kind" and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (tevkna qeou', tekna qeou), Jesus is God's Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

James White

James White who was a critical consultant for the Lockman Foundation's New American Standard Bible[2] believes that monogenes theos is the correct reading as he says in his article "Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John "In Reference to the Deity of Christ"[3] that :"John describes Jesus as the unique God (monogenes theos) in John 1:18." Also

"The only "Him" in the context is Jesus; hence, for John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well."

In his zeal to promote the Trinity to Unitarians and Muslims, White many times uses John 1:18 as a proof text for Jesus being God. By using such poor examples, White has opened the door for Muslims and Unitarians to poke holes in an easily disproven argument. He procliams to be an evangelical believer, but places doubt over 200 verses in the bible of the reformation. Muslims therefore love his flawed concepts, which they use just as fervently as Bart Ehrmans misconceptions. Many times Ehrman and White are in agreement over deletions and changes in scripture.

No man has seen God

John Calvin said:

“When [John] says that no one has seen God, it is not to be understood of the outward seeing of the physical eye. He means that, since God dwells in inaccessible light, he cannot be known except in Christ…”

Corrupted Grammars and Dictionaries



In the Johannine lit[erature] m[onogenês] is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here...But some (e.g., WBauer, Hdb.) prefer to regard m[onogenês] as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One." (Bauer, it will be remembered, believed the Gospel of John was a gnostic text, and hence saw a theology behind John's writing compatible with the creation of the Logos as a semi-divine intermediary between the Monas and the creation with which He could not directly interact).

Louw & Nida

Louw & Nida:

Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - 'unique, only.'

Moulton & Milligan

Moulton & Milligan:

Literally 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), not 'only-begotten....'


Grimm/Thayer: Single of its kind, only, [A.V. only-begotten]." (Note that Thayer's insertion merely cites the KJV translation, which owes considerable debt to the Vulgate of Jerome, who translated monogenês "unigenitus").


NIDNTT: "The only begotten, or only....RSV and NEB render monogenês as 'only.' This meaning is supported by R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, I, 1966, 13 f., and D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72, 1953, 213-19. Lit. it means “of a single kind,” and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of “only begotten” goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made."



Unique, only.


LSJ: "Only, single" (references John 1:14, the only NT verse cited).


TDNT defines monogenês as "only begotten," but distinguishes between nouns ending in -genes and adverbs ending in -genês. The former denote the source of the derivation, the latter the nature of the derivation. Thus, the author (Buchsel) concludes that monogenês means "of sole descent." But Pendrick argues strongly against this view:

Buchsel's claim that "in accordance with the strict meaning of genos, -genês always denotes derivation" is contradicted both by the evidence of the aforementioned adjectives as well as by the fact that even in the earliest Greek literature genos occurs without the denotation of derivation. On the other hand...monogenês could be ... interpreted rather as 'only-born.' (:Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," NTS, 41, pp. 587-588).
Buchsel also calls "an only-begotten, one who is God:" "an exegetical invention [which] can hardly be credited of [John], who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression." (TDNT 4 p. 740).


Textus Receptus

Complutensian Polyglot

See Also John 1:18 Complutensian Polyglot 1514


Image:John 1 18 Aldine 1518.JPG
John 1:18 in Greek in the 1518 Greek New Testament of Aldine

Desiderius Erasmus

Image:John 1 18 Erasmus 1522.JPG
John 1:18 in Greek in the 1522 Greek New Testament of Erasmus


Stephanus (Robert Estienne)

Image:John 1 18 Stephanus 1546.jpg
John 1:18 in the 1546 Greek New Testament of Stephanus

Theodore Beza

  • 1565 (Novum Testamentum, 1st folio edition. Geneva)
Image:John 1 18 Beza 1565.JPG
John 1:18 in Beza's 1565 Greek New Testament
  • 1565 (Beza Octavo 1st)
Image:John 1 18 Beza 1567.JPG
John 1:18 in Beza's 1567 Greek New Testament
  • 1567 (Beza Octavo 2nd)
  • 1580 (Beza Octavo 3rd)
  • 1582 (Novum Testamentum. 2nd folio edition. Geneva.)
  • 1588 [(Novum Testamentum. 3rd folio edition. Geneva.)
Image:John 1 18 Beza 1589.JPG
John 1:18 in Beza's 1588 Greek New Testament
John 1:18 in Beza's 1598 Greek New Testament
John 1:18 in Beza's 1598 Greek New Testament

See Also John 1:18 Beza 1598 (Beza)

  • 1604 (Beza Octavo 5th)

Other Greek

  • 1881 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν είς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Westcott and Hort)


External Links

Personal tools