According to Dan Wallace:
Turning now to the Church Fathers, Ehrman emphasizes the early date of
υἱός by listing three specific Church Fathers “who were writing before
our earliest surviving manuscripts were produced” (Irenaeus, Clement,
and Tertullian).75 Regrettably, he does this without acknowledging any
Church Father supporting θεός around the same period (or P66). I,
therefore, will equally list three here: Irenaeus, Clement, and
Eusebius. One may quickly notice that the same names appear on both
sides of the debate. This redundancy, though, reveals the fact that
many Fathers (both Greek and Latin) use υἱός as well as θεός in their
writings at John 1.18. My point is that their are many names that
could be used to support either reading. (Jesus as Θεὸς, Textual
Examination, John 1:18)
(Wallace, Jesus as Θεὸς, Textual Examination, John 1:18)
The following are the four textual variants (in transliterated Greek) of John 1:18b:
The Coptic versions is one of the earliest versions of the NT where huios is completely absent.
Wallace again:
Turning now to the Church Fathers, Ehrman emphasizes the early date of
υἱός by listing three specific Church Fathers “who were writing before
our earliest surviving manuscripts were produced” (Irenaeus, Clement,
and Tertullian).75 Regrettably, he does this without acknowledging any
Church Father supporting θεός around the same period (or P66). I,
therefore, will equally list three here: Irenaeus, Clement, and
Eusebius. One may quickly notice that the same names appear on both
sides of the debate. This redundancy, though, reveals the fact that
many Fathers (both Greek and Latin) use υἱός as well as θεός in their
writings at John 1.18. My point is that their are many names that
could be used to support either reading. In fact, here are three more:
Basil, Cyril, and Origen. At the risk of sounding repetitive, θεός
shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., early Latin
Fathers in the Gospels are Western witnesses)76 with relatively strong
textual weight (per Ehrman’s argument). (ibid.)
In sum, externally, both readings enjoy wide geographical
distribution, even though υἱός is relatively stronger in
non-Alexandrian forms of text. Both readings co-existed in the second
century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, then, I
believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and
transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. (ibid.)
In retrospect, I conclude that μονογενὴς θεός is the best reading
given all the evidence we have internally and externally. As a result,
it is highly probable that the text of John 1.18 calls Jesus θεός. (ibid.)
The μονογενὴς is best translated as 'only-begotten' (NKJV, NASB) cohering with the scope of parent-to-offspring relationship in which the word is used (cf: John 1:18, 1 John 4:9). To beget means to make someone have one's nature.Thus Thus, the word μονογενὴς encapsulates the idea of 'only child' as its primary semantic locus.
