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). 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.**
[(Wallace, Jesus as Θεὸς, Textual Examination, John 1:18)][1]
The following are the four textual variants (in transliterated Greek) of John 1:18b:
1. ho monogenês (The Only-begotten One)
2. ho monogenês huios (the only-begotten Son)
3. monogenês theos (only begotten, God)
4. ho monogenês theos (the only begotten God)
**The following manuscripts support *huios*** (all include the article):
- Greek witnesses
- Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.)
- Codex C<sup>3</sup> - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
- Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.)
- Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.)
- 063 = 9th C. Greek uncial
- *f*<sup>1, 13</sup> - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss
- 𝔐 = majority Byzantine text
- Versions
- Old Latin
- Curetonian Syriac (5th C.)
- Heraclean Syriac (18th C. edition)
However, the following supports μονογενὴς Θεὸς as the correct reading :
1) LECTIO DIFFICILIOR POTIOR
The copyist has more likely to change "theos" to "huios" than vise versa.In fact, μονογενὴς Θεὸς is a so-called hapax legomenon - a rare one-time occurrence in the NT. Even if it were a simple scribal error, the sudden appearance of a "difficult reading" in the manuscript tradition would likely be corrected back to the normative text.
2) NOT A GNOSTIC TRANSLATION AT ALL
Some say that it's a gnostic corruption of the text but if that were so then why do we find the Old Testament and Jesus' ancestry in the very MSS?
3) EARLY MSS ATTEST ITS VERACITY
μονογενὴς Θεὸς is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.
**The following manuscripts support *theos*.**
This list conflates the evidence of those MSS which have an article (*ho*) and those without it (the latter is the text of Nestle-Aland):
- Greek witnesses
- Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
- Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
- Codex א - Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
- Codex B - Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
- Codex C\* - Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
- Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
- Codex L - Regius (A.D 701-800)
- non-Greek witnesses
- Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III] (A.D. 300)
- Diatessaron ("Out of Four") of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
- Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
- Adysh manuscript (A.D 897)-Gregordian-Georgian/Iberian version
- Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
- Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)
- Late Greek
- Minuscule 423 (A.D 1556)
Irenaeus' (A.D. 130-202) 'unigenitus deus' in his Against Heresies IV, 20, 11 is probably a John 1:18 quotation from an Old Latin MSS.
The Coptic versions is one of the earliest versions of the NT where *huios* is completely absent.
Wallace again:
> ... **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.)
4) EASTERN AND WESTERN CHURCH FATHERS AND HERETICS QUOTED IT
Irenaeus, Clement ,Eusebius, Basil, Cyril, and Origen, Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory-Nyssa, Heracleon, Hilary, Jerome, Origen, Ps-Ignatius, Ptolemy, Serapion, Synesius, Tatian, Theodotus, Valentinius, and Arius.
5) FITS THE CONTEXT OF THE PROLOGUE/ JOHANNINE GOSPEL
John 1:1 - pros ton theon / theos
John 1:1 - pros to theon
John 1:14 - monogenes
John 1:18 - monogenes / theos
John 20:28 - theos
You'll notice how coherent the prologue is when Θεὸς is the reading.This is an internal argument for the authenticity of the reading Θεὸς.
> Stylistically, θεός closes the inclusio begun in 1.1c; also possibly
> providing a parallel with 20.28 (the Gospel as a whole). (ibid.)
----------
NOTES
There are two possible ways to translate the Greek phrase μονογενὴς Θεὸς:
adjective + substantive = only begotten God
substantive + substantive = only begotten , who is God or God only begotten
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, the word μονογενὴς encapsulates the idea of 'only child' as its primary semantic locus.
[1]: https://bible.org/article/jesus-%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82-god-textual-examination