Tag: bible

PLINY & CHRIST’S DEITY

In this post I will quote an ancient non-Christian witness, specifically from a pagan governor, which testifies to the fact of Christians gathering on a specific day of the week to worship Christ as God by singing hymns to him. The source that I am about cite also mentions some of the early Christian practices, which believers bound themselves to observe. All emphasis is mine.

THE TESTIMONY

Pliny and Trajan on the Christians

Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 AD. We have a whole set of exchanges of his letters with the emperor Trajan on a variety of administrative political matters. These two letters are the most famous, in which P. encounters Christianity for the first time.

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

COMMENTARY

According to this pagan governor, as he reports to the emperor, we discover that:

Gentiles who had converted to Christianity no longer sacrificed to gods or frequented pagan temples.

Those that did deny Christ by sacrificing to the emperor and pagan deities had already abandoned the faith.

True Christians could not be forced to recant their faith and curse Christ.

The early Church had female deacons, two of whom had been tortured by Pliny in order to get a confession out of them.

The “crimes” which these Christians committed were to bind themselves to never “commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.” They were also guilty of assembling together to partake of food, an obvious reference to the Eucharist.

These Christians would also gather on a fixed day right before sunrise so as to sing hymns to Christ in recognition of his being “a God.”

It is this last point that is vitally crucial since it affirms that the early Church gathered for the express purpose of glorifying Christ as God. Here’s another rendition of Pliny’s words:

“… They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity (carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem seque)…” (The Letters of Pliny, the Consul. [Otridge & Son, London 1810], translated by W. Melmoth, Volume 2, p. 248)

The Latin can also be rendered as, “and follow one another to sing to Christ as if to a G/god.”

What is interesting is that early Christian writers knew of and referenced Pliny’s letter to the emperor.

For example, note what Tertullian states in this respect:

“… For the younger Pliny, when he was ruler of a province, having condemned some Christians to death, and driven some from their steadfastness, being still annoyed by their great numbers, at last sought the advice of Trajan, the reigning emperor, as to what he was to do with the rest, explaining to his master that, except an obstinate disinclination to offer sacrifices, he found in the religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, and other crimes. Upon this Trajan wrote back that Christians were by no means to be sought after; but if they were brought before him, they should be punished…” (The Apology, Chapter 2)

And here’s what 4^th century church historian Eusebius writes, who actually references Tertullian:

Chapter 33. Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.

1. So great a persecution was at that time opened against us in many places that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors, being disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the emperor concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for their faith. At the same time, he informed him in his communication that he had not heard of their doing anything profane or contrary to the laws — except that they arose at dawn and sang hymns to Christ as a God; but that they renounced adultery and murder and like criminal offenses, and did all things in accordance with the laws.

2. In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished. On account of this the persecution which had threatened to be a most terrible one was to a certain degree checked, but there were still left plenty of pretexts for those who wished to do us harm. Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers in various places, would lay plots against us, so that, although no great persecutions took place, local persecutions were nevertheless going on in particular provinces, and many of the faithful endured martyrdom in various forms.

3. We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above. The translation runs as follows: And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them.

4. And he reported this also, that the Christians arose early in the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of preserving their discipline forbade murder, adultery, avarice, robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished. Such were the events which took place at that time. (Church History (CH), Book III)

Eusebius confirms the early, widespread worship of Christ as God by all the Christians throughout the then known world:

Chapter 28. Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures…

5. For who does not know the works of Irenæus and of Melito and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine.

6. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy? (CH, Book V)

To call this remarkable would be putting it mildly.

Pliny attests to the fact that Gentiles all over the Roman emperor had abandoned their worship of the pagan deities in order to now worship a crucified Jew as their God, a Man who wasn’t even a fellow countryman or Gentile!

What makes Pliny’s statements regarding the early Christian believers all the remarkable is that there is no mention of their worshiping God the Father, or some other God alongside of Jesus. Rather, these Christians were directing their praise and hymns to the crucified and risen Jesus!

Now this doesn’t mean that they weren’t praising either the Father or the Spirit. Rather, the implication is that the recognition of Christ as God was crucial and essential to the faith of true believers. In other words, there was no Christianity that did not necessitate the worship and glorification of the risen Jesus as God Incarnate!

It is evident as to why Pliny refers to Christians worshiping Jesus as a G/god, since this obviously a reflection from his pagan background. I.e., from Pliny’s point of view Jesus, and by extension the God worshiped by Jews, were/are just a couple of gods among the pantheon of divinities worshiped by various groups and ethnicities. It does not mean that Christians thought of Jesus another god besides the one true God YHWH.

The following Evangelical scholars bring out the import and significance of Pliny’s words:

The evidence for early Christian hymns to Christ extends beyond the pages of the New Testament—and not just from other early Christian writers, but from non-Christian observers as well. Around A.D. 111–115, Pliny described Christians as gathering “on a certain day before sunrise” in order to sing “hymns to Christ as to God” (Latin, carmenque christo quasi deo; Pliny, Epistles 10.96.7).⁸ Evidently Pliny is referring here to the church’s practice of meeting weekly early Sunday mornings, which from an early period they were doing to commemorate Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.⁹ Thus the very time of the church’s meetings, as well as the content of their songs, focused on Christ…

Pliny’s statement is supported by a comment made by an unknown Christian writer around A.D. 200 and quoted in the fourth-century church history written by Eusebius: “How many psalms and how many songs, which from the beginning were written by pious brothers, sing about Christ as the Logos of God and confess his godhood.”¹¹ The word translated “confess his godhood” (theologountes, literally, “saying God”) also could be translated “confessing that he is God” or, more idiomatically in English, “confessing his deity.” Notice that the statement refers to such songs as having been written “from the beginning,” meaning from the beginning of the church. (Robert M. Bowman & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case For The Deity of Christ [Kregel Publications, 2007], Part 1: The Devotion Revolution: Jesus Shares the Honors Due to God, 4. Sing to the Lord, pp. 58-59)

Another NT scholar that commented on Pliny’s letter is the late Larry W. Hurtado:

90. Swete (Apocalypse, 84) rightly notes that Rev. 5 likely reflects “the devotional attitude of the Asiatic Church” of the time of the text, as attested also a few decades later in Pliny’s famous report that the Christians he arrested met to sing hymns to Christ as (a) God (Pliny, Epistles 10.96). Note also Eusebius, HE 5.28.5-6: “All the Psalms and hymns which were written by faithful Christians from the beginning sing of Christ as the Logos of God and treat him as God.” (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge U.K. 2003], 10. Proto-Orthodox Devotion, p. 593)

And:

Moreover, Jewish and pagan critics of early Christianity agreed in seeing the worship of Jesus as one of the most objectionable features of the young faith.

The famous report to Trajan from the Roman magistrate Pliny offers valuable early confirmation (Pliny, Epistles 10.96-97). As Stanton pointed out, Pliny’s letter is “the first report on early Christian worship which we have from an ‘outsider.'”¹¹⁹ From his interrogation of apostate Christians and his torture of two unnamed Christian women “deaconesses” (ministrae), Pliny derived information on what Christians did in their weekly gatherings “on a fixed day” (probably Sunday).²⁰ The first and most prominent action in Pliny’s summary of their regular meetings is that they chant a hymn “to Christ as to a god.”¹²¹

In itself, however, reverencing Jesus as divine would likely not have been such a problem. A sophisticated Roman such as Pliny was quite ready to accept religious diversity, and was well aware that a variety of gods and heroes were reverenced in various religious circles. Nor did recognizing another new deity present a difficulty. What caused Pliny’s concern about the Christians in Bithynia was that their reverence of Jesus as divine was accompanied by a refusal to reverence images of “the gods” and the emperor. This religious exclusivity created a major (indeed, sometimes a mortal) social and political problem for Christians, and it made their worship of Jesus pointedly offensive to pagan outsiders.¹²² As Finney observed, “Refusal to worship set a clear boundary between the new [Christian] religionists and their neighbors.”¹²³ Robert Grant proposed that the Romans came to require Christians to offer sacrifice precisely because they had learned that this was a particularly effective way of distinguishing true believers from apostates or people falsely accused of being Christians. That is, the exclusivist devotional stance of Christians seems to have shaped Roman judicial practice toward them.¹²⁴

But this exclusivity of devotion also signals the religious significance that worshiping Jesus had for Christians. They gave the sort of reverence to Jesus that they otherwise reserved for “God the Father” alone, regarding it apostasy to give such reverence to any of the other deities touted in their culture. Pliny wrote that he let anyone accused of being a Christian go free if they reverenced the images of the gods, made supplication to the emperor’s image, and “cursed Christ”; for Pliny was reliably informed that these were things that “those who are really Christians cannot be made to do.” Reverencing Jesus as uniquely divine, or cursing him — here lies the crucial matter in Pliny’s account of how to tell a true Christian from someone falsely accused of being one. As Lebreton noted, ” For this magistrate, as for his victims, the characteristic trait of the Christian religion is the rendering of homage to Christ ‘as to a god,’ and faithful loyalty to his service.” Justin (who later had his own opportunity to confirm his words in martyrdom) says, “though threatened with death, we do not deny his [Jesus’] name” (Dial. 30.2). (Ibid., pp. 606-697)

Furthermore, in all the reported views of critical outsiders in the first two centuries, whether pagans or Jews, Christian worship is characterized as essentially directed toward Jesus, as Lebreton showed in an incisive analysis that included Pliny, the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, Lucian, and Celsus.¹²⁸ In fact, in this early period, outsiders tend to portray Christian worship rather simply as directed to Jesus solely, though the actual pattern of Christian worship appears to have been more what we should call “binitarian,” God and Jesus the recipients.

As we have already taken note of Pliny, let us quickly consider these other witnesses, beginning with Lucian of Samosata. Around 170 Lucian complained that Christians reject “the Hellenistic gods [theous men tous hellenikous haparnesontai] in order to worship this crucified sophist and to live according to his laws” (Peregrinus 13). About the same time as Lucian, and probably with a better knowledge of Christian practice and writings, Celsus pilloried Christians for their “excessive worship” (hyperthreskeuousi) of the one they refer to as “the Son of God” (Origen, Contra Celsum 8.12). Though Christians reject the worship of the gods, claiming to revere only the one true God, Celsus says they act inconsistently with this in their unjustified exaltation of the man Jesus. As Lebreton observed, Celsus correctly saw what was central in Christianity: “the adoration of one unique God, rejecting as impiety all polytheism, and uniting in the same worship the Son of God with his Father.”¹²⁹

In the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp in Smyrna (ca. 155-160), the Roman official conducting the hearing repeatedly demands that Polycarp reverence the emperor, and also urges him to “curse Christ” and thereby save himself from death (Mart. Pol. 8.2; 9.2-3; 10.1). This echoes the demand Pliny made of Bithynian Christians a few decades earlier. Polycarp’s unforgettable reply only confirms that the key issue was reverence of Jesus: “For eighty-six years I have been his servant, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” (9.3).¹³⁰ After Polycarp’s fiery end, Jewish members of the hostile crowd petition the Roman official not to give the corpse to the Christians, for fear that “they will abandon the crucified one to offer worship to this one” (17.12). The early Christian editors of the account, however, portray this allegation as rank ignorance, and they insist that the worship Christians give Jesus is categorically different from the regard in which they hold martyrs “as disciples and imitators of the Lord” (17.2-3). Even though the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom comes from Christian hands and obviously had a propagandistic purpose, the insistent demand of the Roman official and the allegation of the Jews in the narrative are probably authentic indications that in the eyes of second century outsiders “the object of Christian worship is the crucified one.” (Ibid., pp. 608-609)

NT EVIDENCE

Pliny’s report merely confirms what we find in the first century documents of the New Testament. According to the NT writings, namely, the very first believers, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, were united in their worship of Jesus as God Incarnate, as the unique divine Son of God who became Man for the redemption of the world and who, after his physical, bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven, now reigns as Lord over all.

Case in point:

“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:5-11 New International Version (NIV)

Scholars believe that the Apostle has incorporated an early hymn of the Church, one in which Jesus is identified as eternally existing in the very nature of God who voluntarily humbled himself to be born as a Man in order to assume the status of slave.

The hymn even ascribes to Christ the very universal worship and status, which the Hebrew Bible attributes to YHWH God alone!

“Declare and draw near with your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has made this heard from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” Isaiah 45:21-23 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“Let them praise the name of Yahweh, For His name alone is set on high; His splendor is above earth and heaven.” Psalm 148:13 LSB

“Who is like Yahweh our God, The One who sits on high,” Psalm 113:5 LSB

Other passages where we see early Christians worshiping and glorifying Christ as God Incarnate include:

“who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 9:4-5 LSB

“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called as saints, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:2-3 LSB

“If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.” 1 Corinthians 16:22-23 LSB

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom… In the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing… The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will save me unto His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. 2 Timothy 4:1, 8, 18 LSB

“And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’” Hebrews 1:6 LSB

“but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18 LSB

“and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen.” Revelation 1:5-6 LSB

“He who bears witness to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.” Revelation 22:20-21 LSB

The final example is truly astonishing:

“And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one having a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

“And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain and purchased for God with Your blood people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And You made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.’”

“Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.’

“And EVERY CREATED THING which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and ALL THINGS IN THEM, I heard saying, ‘To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’

“And the four living creatures kept saying, ‘Amen.’ And the elders fell down and worshiped.” Revelation 5:8-14 LSB

Remarkably, John sees every created thing throughout the entire creation worshiping Jesus to the same extent and for the same duration that the Father is worshiped!

This affirms that Christ is not a creature, but rather the uncreated Creator and Sustainer who took on a human nature for our redemption (Cf. Matt. 1:18-23; John 1:1-5, 9-10, 14, 18; Colossians 1:13-18; 2:2-3, 9; Hebrews 1:1-3, 10-12).

FURTHER READING

CLEMENT OF ROME AND CHRIST’S DEITY

Ignatius of Antioch’s Proclamation of the Essential Deity of Christ

LET EVERY THING THAT HAS BREATH PRAISE JAH JESUS!

Does Jesus Receive Latreuo?

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS: REFUTING THE HERETICS

CHRIST WORSHIPED AS GOD ALMIGHTY

SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY & THE QURAN

In this post I am going to provide evidence that the Quran has been heavily influenced by, and even fashioned after the Christological debates which took place among Syriac speaking Christians. I will prove that the very language of the Quran has been shape by the theological vocabulary and expressions found within Syriac Christianity. As one Muslim scholar acknowledged:

It is unlikely that the canonical Christian scriptures or other Christian writings were translated into Arabic before the rise of Islam. Thus we should probably think in terms of an indirect knowledge of Christian sources based on hearsay or ad hoc translation rather than on literary borrowing. But what were these sources? In broad terms Syriac Christian literature seems a strong candidate for several reasons. First, Syriac accounts for a large proportion of the borrowed words in the Qur’an and for the Qur’anic spelling of many Biblical names. The peculiar spelling of ‘Īsā still remains something of an enigma but the most plausible explanation is that it is derived from Isho, the Syriac name for Jesus. (Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1991, p. 17; bold emphasis mine)

SYRIAC BIBLE

As far as the Syriac versions of the Bible are concerned, we know that translations already existed long before the rise of Islam. As the late renowned biblical scholar and textual critic Dr. Bruce M. Metzger noted:

“The several Syriac versions that fall to be considered in the present chapter begin with the earliest translation of the Gospels. Whether this was Tatian’s Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels prepared about A.D. 170, or the Old Syriac version of the separate Gospels, is a question that scholars have debated for many years without reaching any generally accepted solution. How much of the rest of the New Testament was included in the Old Syriac version is difficult to ascertain. In any case, toward the close of the fourth or at the beginning of the fifth century a version of twenty-two books of the New Testament was available in a translation which came to be called at a later date the Peshitta Syriac version…” (Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations [Oxford University Press Inc., 1977], p. 3; bold emphasis mine)

Metzger also commented on the Jacobite/Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East split in 431 AD over Miaphysitism and Nestorian Christological stances, and how these groups both employed the Peshitta:

The word ‘Peshitta’² is a passive participle of the verb… (‘stretched out’) signifying, among other meanings, what is simple or clear. The word appears to have been employed for the first time in designating a version of the Scriptures by the Jacobite Moses bar Kepha (d. 903),³ who applied it to the Syriac version of the Old Testament made from the Hebrew, in opposition to the version made by Paul of Tella from the Septuagint and supplied with complicated references drawn from Origen’s Hexapla. In the case of the New Testament the same version would merit such an epithet in contrast to the Harclean version, which was furnished with a textual apparatus. Others interpret the word as meaning widely diffused or current. According to this interpretation the name ‘Peshitta’ is parallel to the Latin Vulgata.⁴

The Peshitta version antedates the division of Syrian Christianity into two rival communities, and hence it was accepted by the Nestorians as well as by the Jacobites. In its official form it includes twenty-two books of the New Testament, the four minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse being absent. It thus apparently reflects the canon according to the usage of the Church at Antioch in the fourth and fifth centuries. It does not include Luke xxii. 17-18 and the pericope de adultera (John vii. 53-viii. 11).

Syrian scribes devoted great care to the transcription of the Peshitta version. A remarkable accord exists among the manuscripts of every age, there being on the average scarcely more than one important variant per chapter.

At the beginning of the twentieth century Gregory¹ was able to enumerate more than 300 Peshitta manuscripts of the New Testament. Actually, however, the number is much larger, for Gregory did not include all the manuscripts that are in the libraries in the East. And since Gregory’s time other manuscripts have come to light, particularly in little-known collections in the West.² Among manuscripts that have been catalogued the following are noteworthy for one reason or another-usually by reason of age.³ (Ibid., pp. 48-49; bold emphasis mine)

Metzger mentions some of the most prominent and influential voices of these conflicting Christological understandings held by the Syriac speaking Christian communities before and during the rise of Islam:

One of the most influential leaders of the Monophysite branch of the Church at the beginning of the sixth century was Philoxenus (Mar Aksenaya’) of Mabbûg in eastern Syria, who, with his contemporary, Severus of Antioch, founded Jacobite Monophysitism. Despite acrimonious charges levelled against him by his theological opponents, his writings disclose him as an acute dialectician, a prolific author, a subtle theologian, and an uncompromising champion of the unity of the nature of Christ against what he regarded as the heresy of the two natures.^I

The work of translating the New Testament was performed in 507-8, when the prestige of Philoxenus was at its height. Inasmuch as Philoxenus did not know Greek, he commissioned Polycarp, chorepiscopus in the diocese of Mabbûg, to revise the Peshitta version in accordance with Greek manuscripts. Polycarp sometimes replaced Syriac words with synonyms, sometimes used different prepositions, and generally gave preference to the independent possessive pronoun over against the suffixes. It appears that Polycarp sought to make a more theologically accurate rendering of the Greek than the current Peshitta rendering. In addition to the books included in the earlier translation, the Philoxenian included (seemingly for the first time in Syriac) 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Book of Revelation. Since the Philoxenian version was made and sponsored by Jacobite ecclesiastics, it was used only by the Monophysite branch of Syriac-speaking Christendom. (Ibid., pp. 65-66; bold emphasis mine)

And here’s what Metzger wrote in regards to Syriac versions of the Holy Bible produced during the time that Muhammad allegedly lived:

A later translation was produced by Thomas of Harkel around 616, which is known as the Harclean version:

“The chief characteristic of the Harclean version is its slavish adaptation to the Greek, to the extent that even clarity is sacrificed… As compared with the Peshitta, the Harclean not infrequently uses a Greek loan-word instead of a native Syriac one.² This preference for transliteration shows itself even in the case of Semitic proper names, when, instead of allowing them to display their Semitic etymology, the reviser represents the Greek orthography… In short, the edition of the New Testament produced by Thomas appears to be a suitable counterpart to Paul of Tella’s Syro-Hexaplar-a painfully exact imitation of Greek idiom, even in the order of words, often in violation of Syriac idiom. As a result the modern scholar is hardly ever in doubt as to the Greek text intended by the translator.^I” (Ibid., pp. 69-70)

With the foregoing in perspective, I am now going to show how Syriac Christianity and its various Christological formulations, theological expressions, etc., have found their way into the text of the Arabic Quran. This should not come as a surprise seeing that Syriac and Arabic are cognate languages, with the Arabic script developing and evolving from Nabataean Aramaic, of which Syriac is an offshoot.

AHAD & SAMAD: SYRIAC TERMS?

The 112^th surah proclaims that Allah is ahad and that he is also al-samad, the latter term being understood by specific Muslim expositors to be an affirmation of the Islamic deity be solid, not hollow:

Say, “He is Allah, Ahad (One). Allah, Al-Samad (The Absolute). Neither (He) begets nor (He) was born. And there was not for Him equivalent One.” S. 112:1-4 (Samy Mahdy https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/112/st87.htm)

God is Solid (al-samadu) (and does not need anyone’s help). S. 112:2 (Bijan Moeinian https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/112/st11.htm)

“Allah is Samad.” (Absolute Self-Sufficient One beyond any need or defect, free from the concept of multiplicity, and far from conceptualization and limitation. The one into whom nothing can enter, and the One from whom no other form of existence can come out!) (Ahmed Hulusi https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/112/st63.htm)

Suffice it to say, these expressions can be found in the literature of the Christians before Muhammad’s time.

For instance. Jacob of Serugh (ca. 451–521) wrote a letter consoling the Najrani Christians for undergoing persecution for their beliefs. The Syriac terms employed echo those found in the aforementioned surah:

You have learned the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (ʾabā wa-brā w-ruḥā d-qudšā ilepton). And besides these three names, who are one and as one are three (w-ʿam hālēn tlātā šemhin d-itayhon ḥad w-ḥad tlātā), you accept no other name and number (šmā w-menyānā ḥrinā lā mqabbli-tton). (G. Olinder, Iacobi Sarugensis epistulae quotquot supersunt. (Syr. 57. = Syr. II, 45 [Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium]) [Peeters, Leuven 1937], p. 95 (1-4); bold emphasis mine)

And:

One is the Son, begotten of the Father before all the worlds (ḥad brā da-ylid men ʾabā meddem kull-hon ʿālmē).

One is who is the likeness of the Father in everything (ḥad da-dmā l-abu b-kull).

One is the only-begotten, who takes no other order and number like him (ḥad ʾiḥidāyā d-lā mqabbel ʿammeh sedra w-menyānā ḥrinā).

This one is the Son and the Lord and of the same nature as the Father (hu hānā brā wa-māryā wa-bar kyānā d-abu).

This one is from the Father and with the Father (hānā d-itaw men ʾabā w-ʿam ʾabā). (Olinder, p. 95 (14-19); bold emphasis mine)

In another letter, Jacob describes God fashioning a solid, hard body for Adam, using the Syriac phrase s’mad:

“He fashioned him and gave him form (ṣāreh), He made him into a solid and hard body (ṣmad ḥāṣeh).” (Jacques de Saroug: Quatre homélies métriques sur la création (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 508-509, Scriptores Syri 214-215), translated by Khalil Alwan [Peeters, Leuven 1989], Volume 2, p. 175)

What makes Jacob’s use of the term s’mad for Adam rather interesting is that Islamic tradition records a fable of Satan (called Iblis) looking at Adam’s lifeless body and arguing that this could not be Allah since the latter is solid, whereas the former is hollow who has holes which Satan could and did enter through!

According to Abu Kurayb–`Uthman b. Said-Bishr b. ‘Umarah–Abu Rawq–Dahhak–Ibn ‘Abbas: God commanded to lift up the soil from which Adam was to be made. He created Adam from sticky clay from stinking slime. He continued. It became stinking slime only after (having been compact) soil.⁵⁹³ He continued.

He created Adam from it with His own hand. He continued. It remained lying around as a body (jasad) for forty nights. Iblis used to come to it and kick it with his foot, whereupon it made sounds. He continued. This is (meant by) God’s word: “From salsal like potter’s clay.”⁵⁹⁴ He means: like something separated that is not compact. He continued. Then (Iblis) entered Adam’s mouth and left from his posterior, and he entered his posterior and left from his mouth. Then he said: You are not something for making sounds (salsalah). What, then, were you created for? If I am given authority over you, I shall ruin you, and if you are given authority over me, I shall disobey you.⁵⁹⁵

According to Masi b. Harun–Amr b. Hammad–Asbat–al-Suddi–Abu Malik and Abu Salih–Ibn ‘Abbas. Also (al-Suddi) Murrah al-Hamdini–Ibn Masud and some (other) companions of the Prophet: God said to the angels: “I am creating a human being from clay. When I have fashioned him and blown some of My spirit into him, fall down in prostration before him!”⁵⁹⁶ God created him with His own hands, lest Iblis become overbearing toward (Adam), so that (God) could say to (Iblis): You are overbearing toward something I have made with My own hand(s), which I Myself was not too haughty to make!? So God created Adam as a human being. He was a body of clay for forty years the extent of Friday(?)⁵⁹⁷When the angels passed by him, they were frightened by what they saw. The angel most frightened was Iblis. He would pass by him, kick him, and thus make the body produce a sound as potter’s clay does. That is (meant) where God says: “From salsal like potter’s clay.”⁵⁹⁸ Then he would say: What were you created for? He entered his mouth and left from his posterior. Then he said to the angels: Don’t be afraid of that one, for your Lord is solid, whereas this one is hollow. When I am given authority over him, I shall ruin him.⁶⁰⁰ (History of Al-Tabari-General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, translated by Franz Rosenthal [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1989], Volume 1, pp. 261-262; bold emphasis mine)

Elsewhere, Jacob wrote the following in respect to the Trinity:

God is one (ḥad alāhā), and he has a word (it leh melltā) and a spirit (it leh ruḥā). The Lord is one (māryā ḥad-u) and his word (w-mellteh) and his spirit (w-ruḥeh) are (one) with him (ʿammeh-ennon). Three persons (qnomē tlātā), one God (ḥad alāhā), limitless (d-lā mestayyak). The Trinity (tlitāyutā), one power (ḥdā mārutā), which is not commanded (d-lā metpaqdā). (F. Jacques de Graffin, Saroug: Homélies contre les Juifs. [Brepols, Turnhout, 1976], p. 50 (93-94); bold emphasis mine)

Ironically, the Quran echoes this Trinitarian belief within the same context of decrying the excesses of Christian devotion to Jesus:

People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word (wa-kalimatuhu) that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him (wa’ruhun minhu). So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, ‘Three’ (thalathatun). Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God (wahidun). Glory be to Him — That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian. S. 4:171 Arberry

In this next citation, Jacob blasts the so-called Nestorians for denying that Mary birthed God:

ܒܒܬܘܠܘܬܗ܀ ܘܛܢܬ ܟܠܬܐ ܒܪܬ ܐܝܡܡܐ ܕܡܟܝܪܐ ܠܗ: ܘܐܨܪܚܬ ܗܘܬ ܒܗ ܒܣܪܬܗ ܣܢܬܗ ܣܚܦܬܗ ܘܢܦܠ܀ ܒܓܠܝܐ ܢܐܡܪ: ܕܠܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ ܒܪ ܐܠ ܗܐ ܕܡܟܝܪܐ ܠܗ܀ ܐܡܪܚ ܒܙܒܢ ܗܘ ܕܐܫܬܢܝ ܕܢܐܡܪ ܗܟܢ: ܕܠܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ ܝܠܕܬ ܡܪܝܡ

ܘܡܢܘ ܡܡܪܚ ܕܩܕܡ ܟܠܬܐ

That one who had gone insane was so insolent at one point that he spoke as follows:

“It was not God that Mary bore in her virginity.”

The bride, the daughter of the day, who was married to him, grew envious. She railed against him, scorned him, despised him, knocked him down, and he fell. (Paulus Bedjan, Homiliae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis [Harrassowitz, Paris 1907], “Holy on the Faith”, Volume 3, p. 603, 21, p. 604, 3 https://archive.org/details/BedjanJacobOfSarugVol3; bold emphasis mine)⁽¹⁾

64 Nestorios of Constantinople, Apology (Loofs, Nestoriana, 205): “Mary did not bear, O dear friend, the divinity, but she bore a human, [who was] an inseparable instrument of the divinity” (non peperit, optime, Maria deitatem, sed peperit hominem, divinitatis inseparabile instrumentum); Sermon 27 (ibid., 337; Ford Lewis Battles, trans., The Sermons of Nestorius [Pittsburgh, 1973], 114): “At once the pagan, receiving the reproach that God was born of Mary, moves forward against Christianity” (statim enim paganus cum reprehensione accipiens, quia de Maria deus natus est, infert adversus Christianum).

The Nestorians’ repudiation of God being born or begotten seems to be the very thing that the Quran is stating, but for a totally different reason–unless, of course, we assume a Syriac proto-Quran, which was later bastardized when it was rendered into Arabic.

The Nestorians meant that God as God could never be born, since he is ever living and can never cease to be. Instead, God united or took to himself a human nature, which was produced in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit.

In that regard, it wasn’t God who was born but rather the Man Christ Jesus who was begotten of Mary, a human being who had been inseparably united to the divine Word or Logos from the very moment the human nature had been conceived.

The problem with such terminology is that it can easily lend itself to the charge that there are two subjects or Persons in this union. It is not hard to see why Nestorians were accused of positing a divine Person/Hypostasis known as the Logos and a human subject who came into being at conception in Mary’s womb, whom the Logos united to Himself.

This leads me to my next point.

ADOPT OR UNITE: THAT IS THE QUESTION!

The Quran decries the notion that Allah has or would adopt or take on a son:

And they say: The Beneficent hath taken (ittakhadha) unto Himself a son (waladan). Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son (waladan), When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son (yattakhidha waladan). There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave. S. 19:88-93 Pickthall

Had God wished to take (yattakhidha) to Himself a son (waladan), He could have chosen whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is God, the One, the Irresistible. S. 39:4 A. Yusuf Ali

And (we believe) that He – exalted be the glory of our Lord! – hath taken (ittakhadha) neither wife nor son (waladan), S. 72:3 Pickthall

The Arabic akhadha is used elsewhere with the connotation of adoption:

And he (the man) from Egypt who bought him, said to his wife: “Make his stay comfortable, may be he will profit us or we shall adopt him as a son (nattakhidhahu waladan).” Thus did We establish Yusuf (Joseph) in the land, that We might teach him the interpretation of events. And Allah has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of men know not. S. 12:21 Hilali-Khan

What makes this rather interesting is that akhadha without the diacritical marks (taskhil) can also be read as ahada (“to unite”).

“And they say: The All-Merciful has united (ittahada) a son… When it does not befit the All-Merciful that He should unite (yattahida)a son.” S. 19:88, 93

“Had God wished to unite(yattahida) a son…” S. 39:3

If this is was what the Quran intended to convey then this again supports the view of many scholars that the Islamic text was actually a collection of Christian hymns/sermons, which were originally in Syriac. At the very least, this would mean that the Quran came to criticize specific Christologies in order to affirm other particular Christological formulations.

For instance, the Quran may be condemning the view of “Nestorians” such as Babai the Great who taught that God the Word united to himself the manhood common to all human beings, in order to make that humanity one Son of God. Babai even employs the Syriac term which corresponds to the Arabic word ahada:

ii.6 Sixth Chapter: On why there was not a union of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit, or of the whole Trinity with the nature of our manhood, which was assumed by the parsopa of this worshipful dispensation, but by one of the qnome of the Trinity, that is, by God the Word, while the nature of the Godhead is one and co-essential with him.

[1] First, let us ask them: Why was there not a union of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit, or of the whole Trinity with the nature of our manhood, which was exalted and assumed for the parsopa of this worshipful dispensation, which was through our Lord Jesus Christ for the renewal and salvation of all, but by one of the qnome of the Holy Trinity, that is, by God the Word? That there was a union we have accepted and confess; and that God the Word was united (ethayyad) parsopicallyto our manhood and made it one Son with himself in one honor and authority we have believed and we hold without hesitation, without question. Again, concerning the manner¹ [of this taking], it is not for us to investigate or search out, for we have learned from the blessed Paul that the riches of Christ are unsearchable,² but that we should believe in the heart and confess with the mouth that we may be saved and justified.³ For we are children of believing Abraham through faith, concerning whom it was said, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.”⁴

[2] Without question this was committed to us by the Son of Thunder, who proclaimed this to the heavenly and to the earthly, and they accepted [it] without doubting: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”⁵And after other things he said, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”⁶ How is the mind able to judge, or to investigate, or to grasp, or to interpret here, tell me? In the beginning God was with God— the Effulgence of the Father, the Image of his qnoma, Infinite from Infinite; but [also] Light from Light, God from God, Living from Living, Eternal from Eternal; the Father, utterly all of him, infinitely, and the infinite Son; and the Son, utterly all of him, in his divine nature, begotten of the Father eternally, and his Begetter not prior to him, and from the infinite Father and begotten of him and existing in him. The Father begets but is in his Son: “My Father is in me and I am in my Father.”⁷ How is his Begotten in him? How is the Father of his own Begotten in the Son? How is he with him, and eternal, and in the beginning? How is it the Son is not after his Cause qnomically, or the Father, who is the head, not qnomically before the Begotten who is from him?

[3] In the same way too what concerns the Holy Spirit moves quickly, incomprehensibly before all small minds: “He proceeds from the Father,”⁸ Infinite from Infinite, all of him in the Father, utterly all of him in the infinite Son, but they do not precede, as also they do not follow one another. And whenever the thinking of him who ventures to investigate is lifted up and hastens to understand the Father, at the same moment that he finds the Father, who was in the beginning in his eternal qnoma and in his Godhead in which there is no beginning, [he] likewise [finds] the Son, who was in the beginning with the Father eternally, like the example of radiance to a sphere, or a word to a soul, though not beginning and not ending, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father eternally, but does not begin in his procession, as also he does not end, the same who searches the depths of the Godhead. There is no space which separates; there is no interval which follows or precedes, and no bodily form, for God is Spirit. How is the bodiless and infinite the Begetter, Begotten, and Proceeding, but the Begetter is not the Begotten or the Proceeding, and the Begotten is not the Begetter or the Proceeding, and the Proceeding is not the Begetter or the Begotten, and these properties are not exchanged with one another, but while they are united they are distinct, and while they are distinct they are united in infinitude, not preceding one another and not following one another? If, then, these things lead to an investigation [of] their manner [of existence], how indeed can we search out the things of this dispensation without faith? For lo, all his works are indeed by faith, because not even his works are searchable, since they⁹ are from nothing, in all these different varieties which surpass numbering, along with others which have been or are to come. Why was the world not created prior to six thousand years, and why has it continued all this time and then is to be renewed? All these things we should leave to their Maker, and we should believe and stand firm as we have been commanded, and keep the commandments, so that we might be exalted in tranquil thought, without comprehension, in assurance of the hope higher than all comprehensible things. (The Book of Union of Babai the Great English Translation with Edited Syriac Text (Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity), edited by Mar Awa iii Royel, translated by Michael J. Birnie [Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2024], iv.12 Twelfth Chapter: That the “anointing” is doubly spoken of concerning the manhood of our Lord, Volume 32, pp. 71, 73; bold emphasis mine)

1 ܐܬ熏ܝܢܟܝܐ

2 Cf. Rom. 11:33.

3 Rom. 10:10.

4 Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3.

5 Jn. 1:1.

6 Jn. 1:14.

7 Jn. 14:10.

8 Jn. 15:27.

9 I.e., his works. (Ibid., pp. 70, 72)

ALLAH IS NOT THE MESSIAH: A NESTORIAN CRITICISM?

At the same time, there are places in which the Quran seems to be upholding the Christological beliefs of the so-called Nestorians.

For instance, the Muslim scripture decries those who would argue that Allah is the Messiah the son of Mary:

They are unbelievers (kafara) who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son (Allaha huwa almaseehu ibnu maryama).’ Say: ‘Who then shall overrule God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary’s son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?’ For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth, and all that is between them, creating what He will. God is powerful over everything. S. 5:17 Arberry

They are unbelievers (kafara) who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son (Allaha huwa al-maseehu ibnu maryama).’ For the Messiah said, ‘Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.’ S. 5:73 Arberry

Ironically, this formulation echoes the very same criticism levelled by the “Nestorians” against Cyril of Alexandria and Chalcedonian Christians:

[4] Therefore we have made the matter clear here because of heretics who, through two arch-heresies²⁶, have spoken impiously, and have been far from the truth and from each other: The Paulinians and Photinians, the children of Jewish vipers, say impiously, “When the Holy Spirit descended upon him in baptism he acquired the anointing and Sonship like the other ‘anointed ones’ of old, and he did not possess an anointing from the union within the womb which made him Son and Lord with God the Word,” by which this one denies the Godhead of the Son. So in the same way they spoke impiously as well who ascribe suffering to God the Word, for they also breathed out destruction in two arch-vipers, belching forth their destructive impiety in open rejection and wicked blasphemy in order to deny the taking of the Head of our race who was exalted in the union. The impious Cyril and the accursed Ḥenana, the spewer of all heresies, impiously spoke in the same way, that “‘Anointed’ is said because he came to human circumstances,” and, | “The finite was from the Infinite,” {138} and “He subjected himself to a measurable state.” These [in the one group] are the fathers of those [in the other], and it is the same clear denial (kpurya)—“The Anointed One is God” and “God is the Anointed One (Alaha huyu Meshicha),” and, “These designations do not indicate anything distinctive,” and, “As there is no distinction between the Only-begotten and the First-born,” and, “The two of them designate the same thing.” Therefore these impious ones all clearly rise up against the Holy Scriptures, and bring to nought each other and perish. But the truth is preserved in holy Church, that the name “Christ” is indicative of the parsopa of the union: “From whom is Christ in the flesh, who is God over all.”²⁷But this name also indicates that by which²⁸ he is the Head of the Church through Baptism, and the First-born from the dead, for through him also the Church obtains the name of “Christianity”²⁹, which is [the state of] “anointedness”³⁰. So too are “Only-begotten” and “First-born” together with the designations: the sense of the two designations allows for a distinction, as we have shown in the things which preceded through the strength of Christ, to whom, and to whose Father, and to the Holy Spirit belong glory, honor, worship, and exaltation for ever and ever. Amen. (Birnie, The Book of Union of Babai the Great, p. 207; bold emphasis mine)

26 ? for ܐܬ熏ܫܝܒ營ܫܪ

27 Cf. Rom. 9:5.

28 That is, by the “anointing”…

29 ܐܬ熏ܢܝܛܣ犯ܟ

30 ܐܬ熏ܚܝܫܡ (Ibid., 206)

Babai condemns anyone who thinks that the statements “The Anointed One is God” and “God is the Anointed One” are reciprocal, and convey the same meaning. As a “Nestorian,” he would only affirm the first proposition, namely, that Christ is God, while rejecting the latter as unbiblical and contrary to a sound, proper Trinitarian theology.

The Quran only condemns the latter part, not the former, as Muslim author Neal Robinson noted when commenting on an ancient Nestorian Christian reference dated to 550 AD:

“… The text which dates from around 550 CE. concludes a discussion of the Trinity with the words ‘The Messiah is God but God is not the Messiah’. The Qur’an echoes ONLY the latter half of the statement. C. Schedl, Muhammad and Jesus (Vienna: Herder, 1978), p. 531.” (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press, Albany 1991], p. 197; bold emphasis mine)

As even one noted scholar of Islam stated:

Islamic scholar George Parrinder concurs:

“To say that God is Christ is a statement not found anywhere in the New Testament or in the Christian creeds. ‘God was in Christ’, said Paul, ‘reconciling the world to himself’. (2 Cor. 5, 19) But this reconciliation through Christ is quite different from saying that God is Christ. ‘You belong to Christ, and Christ to God’, said Paul again, putting the relationship into perspective. (1 Cor. 3:23)

“But in the early Church centuries there arose heresies, such as that of Patripassianism, which so identified Christ and God as to suggest that God the Father had suffered on the cross. About A.D. 200 Noetus had taught that Christ was God the Father, and therefore that the Father himself was born and suffered and died. These views were taken to Rome by Praxeas, of whom Tertullian said that ‘he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy, he put to flight the Comforter and crucified the Father’. The orthodox teaching of the Logos, the Word or ‘Son’ of God, was a defence against such heretical teaching, though it must be admitted that writers in later ages were not always careful enough in their use of these titles.” (Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’ān [OneWorld Publishers, Oxford England, Reprinted 1996], 14. Trinity, pp. 133-134; bold emphasis mine)

It is also interesting that Babai employs the very Syriac cognate of the Arabic term kafara, namely kpurya, in describing any individual who would say that God is the Messiah.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE MUSLIMS?

As if the Syriac Christian influence upon the Quran couldn’t be any more obvious, the very expression that is used to describe a submitter to Allah, namely Muslim, can also be traced to Syriac origins!

In the Peshitta, the Syriac cognate mashlemana is employed with various shades of meaning:

“And the Pharisees and the Scribes who were from Jerusalem came unto Yeshua and they were saying: ‘Why do your disciples violate the tradition of the Elders (ayk mashlemanuta d-qashishe)? They do not wash their hands whenever they eat bread.’” Matthew 15:1-2 (https://biblehub.com/hpbt/matthew/15.htm)

“Yehuda the traitor (mashlemana – ‘the one who would surrender him’) answered and he said, “It is I, Rabbi?” Yeshua said to him, “You have said.”” Matthew 26:25 (https://biblehub.com/hpbt/matthew/26.htm)

Clearly, the theology and Christological language of Syriac Christianity have left an indelible mark on the Quran and Islamic beliefs.

FURTHER READING

Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3

THE PAGAN GODS ALLAH AND AHAD

AHAD: A PRE-ISLAMIC PAGAN DEITY?

“ALLAH ONE OF”: REVISITING THE ISSUE OF AHAD

ENDNOTES

(1) This quote is cited by Philip Michael Forness in Preaching and Religious Debate: Jacob of Serugh and the Promotion of his Christology in the Roman Near East (Full Text), p. 231, which can be accessed here: https://www.academia.edu/24899036/Preaching_and_Religious_Debate_Jacob_of_Serugh_and_the_Promotion_of_his_Christology_in_the_Roman_Near_East_Full_Text_.

HEBREWS 2:9 & SYRIAC CHRISTOLOGY PT. 2

I continue my discussion of the variants of Hebrews 2:9 and its impact on Christology and soteriology: HEBREWS 2:9 & SYRIAC CHRISTOLOGY.

One of the most interesting, in fact remarkable, variants of Hebrews 2:9 is found in the Syriac translation known as the Peshitta.

According to this version, Jesus is said to be the God who chose to die for everyone out of his grace for mankind:

“But we see that he is Yeshua, who became a little lower than the Angels for the suffering of his death, and glory and honor are placed upon his head, for God himself, by his grace, tasted death (hu ger bətaybuteh alaha… ṭəᶜem mawta) in the place of every person.” Hebrews 2:9 Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (HPBT https://biblehub.com/hpbt/hebrews/2.htm)

“But him who was humbled to be less than the angels, we see to be JESHU himself, for the sake of the passion of his death; and glory and honour set upon his head; for He Aloha, [Hu ger Aloho.] in his grace, for every man hath tasted death!” Etheridge‘s Peschito Syriac NT

“But we see him, who was depressed somewhat lower than the angels, to be this Jesus, because of the passion of his death; and glory and honor are placed on his head; for God himself, in his grace, tasted death for all men.” Murdock‘s Syriac Peshitta NT

However, there is another reading which is reflected in the following rendering of the Peshitta:

“We see that he is Jesus who humbled himself to be a little lower than the angels, through his suffering and his death, but now he is crowned with glory and honor; for he tasted death for the sake of every one but God.” George Lamsa Bible (LAMSA https://biblehub.com/lamsa/hebrews/2.htm)

The world-renowned scholar on Syriac Christianity Sebastian P. Brock is worth quoting at length since he explains how these different readings may have been the result of the two main variants of Heb. 2:9 in the Greek copies, which the Syriac speaking Christians would have been aware of:

Although numerous points in this excerpt call for comment, here we must confine ourselves to a single passage, that concerning Heb. 2:9b. As is well known, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts provides the following text in the second half of Heb. 2:9. All emphasis is mine:

… hopos chariti theou hyper pantos geusetai thanatou,

while the variant choris theou, in place of chariti theou, is found only in 0121b, 424c, 1739*”, in the margin of one Vulgate manuscript and in some Peshitta manuscripts (the other Peshitta manuscripts imply a Greek text reading chariti theos). The reading choris theou is definitely older than the Nestorian controversy, seeing that it is already known to several third and fourth-century writers;⁴ a number of modern scholars have argued that it actually represents the original text of the Letter.⁵ Whatever the original reading may have been (and this is not of concern here), it is clear that the poor attestation of choris theou in the extant manuscript tradition is the result of its adoption by writers of the strict Antiochene christological tradition and consequent rejection by all who preferred the Alexandrine christology of Cyril–and in the sixth century this would have meant the vast majority of the Greek speaking church. We can even see something of the process by which attitudes became polarized: whereas Diodore is still happy to accept either reading,⁶ Theodore regards chariti theou as a deliberate alteration which he ridicules.⁷ By Philoxenus’ time, nearly a century later, the reading choris theou has come to be seen as a characteristic feature of theologians in the Antiochene christological tradition, having been dropped by all others: since the reading is by then only found among ‘Nestorians’, it is an easy step to go on to accuse them of inventing it. Nor is Philoxenus the only person to make this accusation, for the later Greek Chalcedonian writers Oikumenios⁸ and Theophylact⁹ do exactly the same.

Syriac writers from the mid fifth-century onwards were sharply divided in the positions they took on Christology, and it will come as no surprise that writers belonging to the Church of the East regularly quote Heb. 2:9 with the reading “apart from God”,¹⁰while Syrian Orthodox authors equally regularly provide either “in his grace, God” (the other reading found in Peshitta manuscripts) or “by the grace of God”, an exact translation of the Greek which would be known to them from the Philoxenian and Harklean versions and from Syriac translations of Greek writers.¹¹ It is accordingly a matter of some interest to see what is the situation at Heb. 2:9b in actual manuscripts of the Peshitta. That the witness of Peshitta manuscripts at this point is divided has not escaped the notice of scholars, among whom Wescott has so far probably provided the most detailed information;² Wescott, however, only made use of a small proportion of the readily accessible early manuscripts of the Peshitta, and so a more extensive enquiry may not be out of place here. (Brock, “Hebrews 2:9b in Syriac Tradition,” in Novum Testamentum, Volume XXVII (27), 3 (Oxford, 1983), pp. 237-239)

To highlight Brock’s points, the reading choris theou (“apart from/without God”) was already known among 3^rd-4^th century AD Christian writers, and was later adapted by the Antiochene or the so-called Nestorian Christians who disagreed with the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria.

The former group were careful to distinguish the human nature of Christ from his divine nature to the extent that they were accused of dividing the Son into two Persons, namely, a divine and a human Person. They did this for the express purpose of defending the Son’s divine nature against any charge of it having morphed into a human nature and/or its having adapted human qualities such as mutability, passions etc.

As such, these Christians would not say that God was born of Mary, or that God died, since the divine nature knows of no beginning or end. I.e., God qua God can never be born, grow, hunger, become weary, or die. Rather, it was the Man who was born, hungered, grew, died and was raised to life. They even refused to call the holy Mother Theotokos (“God-bearer,” “Mother of God”), and chose to instead address her as Christotokos (“Christ-bearer,” “Mother of Christ”).

This explains why the Antiochene school of Christology adopted the reading choris theou into their Syriac copies of Hebrews 2:9, since this affirmed to them that Christ died not as God, but as a mere human being.

The Alexandrian school, on the other hand, insisted on emphasizing the inseparable union of the two natures of the one Son so as to avoid the charge of positing two different Persons, namely a divine Son and a Man who then became united together at the conception of that Man in the consecrated womb of the holy Virgin. They, therefore, chose to speak of God being born, God dying on the cross, God rising from the dead, etc.

It, therefore, only makes sense that those Syriac speaking Christians that agreed with the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria would have adopted a reading of Hebrews 2:9 that emphasized the fact that it was God himself who, in his grace, died for all mankind.

Brock goes on to list the variant Syriac readings among the extant Peshitta MSS:

For the present purpose 31 Peshitta New Testament manuscripts dating between the fifth and thirteenth centuries (inclusive) have been sampled; this represents a high proportion of the extant Peshitta manuscripts in western libraries belonging to this time scale that preserve the passage.’³ With the manuscripts belonging to the later part of this period it is possible to tell their ecclesiastical allegiance on grounds of script, but for the earlier centuries this is not normally possible.

Besides the two basic Peshitta readings, “in his grace, God” (= a, below), and “apart from God” (= d), there also occur two small variants of the former reading, “God in his grace” ( = b), and “in grace, God” (= c). Thus in Peshitta manuscripts we have the following four possible readings:

hu ger b-taybuteh alaha hlap t‘em kulnas’ mawta = a

‘for he in his grace God for the sake of everyone tasted death’

hu ger alaha b-taybuteh … = b

‘for he, God, in his grace …’

‘ hu ger b-taybuta alaha … = c

‘for he in grace God …’

ha ger star men alahi … = d

‘for he apart from God …’

All these of course conflict with the more exact translation of the Greek that is found in the Philoxenian (as quoted by Philoxenus in the passage translated above), in the Harklean and in quotations of the passage found in Syriac translations of Greek writers, all of which have “by the grace of God”. (Brock, pp. 239-240)

Note that three of the four variants basically say the same thing, namely, it was God himself who tasted death for all men.

Brock then concludes by presenting some compelling arguments for why he thinks that the original Peshitta actually read that it was God who tasted death for everyone:

It will be convenient first of all to set out the evidence of the Peshitta manuscripts consulted in tabular form. The witnesses are given in chronological order, by century,¹⁴ and where the ecclesiastical allegiance of the manuscript is evident the symbol W (Western, i.e. Syrian Orthodox or Maronite) or E (Eastern, i.e. Church of the East) is prefixed to the manuscript number. In the first column the reading can be assumed to be a unless otherwise stated. An asterisk denotes the reading of the first hand, before correction. Unless otherwise specified all Add. ( = Additional) and Or. (= Oriental) manuscripts cited belong to the British Library. From this table it will be apparent that from at least the eleventh century onwards it can be safely predicted that East Syrian manuscripts will contain the reading d (‘apart from God’), while West Syrian ones will have readings a, b or c. It is no surprise to find this state of affairs reflected in the printed editions: those in East Syrian script, based on East Syrian manuscripts have d,¹⁵ while those in serto script, based on West Syrian manuscripts, have a, or b.¹⁶ (Brock, pp. 240-241; emphasis mine)

What was the original Peshitta reading? At first sight the fact that we have at least four manuscripts altered from d to a, and only one doubtful one from a to d, might lead one to suggest that d is the original and that the reading a, already in several fifth to seventh century manuscripts, is due to anti-Nestorian bias, once d had become established (already by Theodore of Mopsuestia’s time) as a key text for the Antiochene christological tradition.

This is certainly a possible hypothesis, but I am inclined to think that the situation was more complex and that the evidence would be better interpreted somewhat differently.

Up to its closure in 489 the Persian School at Edessa served as the channel by which Antiochene theology (especially that of Theodore) reached the Syriac world. If, as must have been the case, the teachers at the School were aware of Theodore’s views on the correct reading at Heb. 2:9, they would hardly have tolerated a Peshitta reading which explicitly went against his opinion;’ and at this date no objection would have been felt to ‘correcting’ the Peshitta (supposing it originally had reading a) to concur with the Greek text advocated by the ‘Exegete’ par excellence, seeing that the Peshitta (at least as far as the Gospels were concerned) was already the outcome of a revision which aimed at a closer correspondence to the Greek.

On this second hypothesis, then, that the original reading of the Peshitta was b-taybuteh alaha, and not star men alaha, we would have two series of changes: (1) The first stage would take place at the Persian School of Edessa, from the 430’s onwards, propagating Theodore’s reading (i.e. our d) in Peshitta manuscripts. Since the School was extremely influential (even on West Syrian writers like Philoxenus and Jacob of Serugh in matters of exegesis), it would not be surprising if manuscripts copied there, with reading d, reached circles which disliked the School’s Christological teaching. We thus have the background set for the second set of changes: (2) From the late fifth century onwards manuscripts which were descended from Peshitta texts ‘corrected’ to Theodore’s reading at the Persian School were now ‘corrected’ back to reading a. This is the stage which we actually witness in Add. 14480 and 14479 (the latter indeed written in Edessa in 533/4).

The choice between these two hypotheses could be settled once for all if we had a quotation of Heb. 2:9 in a Syriac author writing before the 430’s. Unfortunately, however, neither Aphrahat nor the Liber Graduum obliges, but we do have Ephrem’s Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, preserved only in Armenian. Molitor’s retroversion into Greek of Ephrem’s quotations of Paul suggests that Ephrem tantalizingly omitted the key words of interest to us when he commented on the passage;¹⁹ reference to the Armenian,²⁰ however, suggests that this is in fact not quite the case:

Ayl p‘arawk‘ ew patuov zor asac‘ Dawit‘ etei psakeac‘vasn zi astuac vasn amenayn mardkan zmah casekeac‘.

But (he) whom David said that ‘He crowned with glory and honour’: (this is) because ‘God, for the sake of all mankind, tasted death’.²¹

Both the Latin translation of the Commentary and Molitor failed to observe that ‘God’ was part of the quotation; this was presumably because they had the Greek reading ‘by the grace of God’ in mind, rather than the Peshitta ‘in his grace, God’. But even if ‘God’ is not strictly part of the quotation, Ephrem could not possibly have written this sentence if his Syriac New Testament text had star men alaha (reading d); on the other hand his words reflect very closely reading a, with God as subject of the verb ‘tasted’: all he has done is to abbreviate the text slightly by omitting ‘in his grace’.

We may accordingly safely conclude that the second hypothesis is to be preferred, and that the original Peshitta version of Heb. 2:9b read hu ger b-taybuteh alaha hlap kulnas’ t‘em mawta, ‘for he in his grace, God, tasted death on behalf of everyone’. (Brock, pp. 243-244)

We, thus, have a very ancient witness from the Syriac stream for the widespread belief in the divinity of Christ. These early versions and Christological disputes all point in one direction, namely, the Christians worldwide held to the fact of Jesus Christ being God in an absolute, essential sense who then became Man for the salvation of the world.

FURTHER READING

MORE ANCIENT WITNESSES TO CHRIST’S DEITY

Ante-Nicene Witness to Jesus’ Deity

IRENAEUS AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST

Justin Martyr’s Witness to Christ’s essential and eternal Deity

Ignatius of Antioch’s Proclamation of the Essential Deity of Christ

Tertullian and the Doctrine of the Trinity

TEXTUAL CRITICISM & CHRIST’S DEITY

Modern New Testament textual critics prefer what is typically known as reasoned eclecticism. This position holds to the belief that the earliest papyri, specifically those manuscripts (MSS) classified as the Alexandrian text type, and the major codices (e.g., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus etc.) are to be prioritized since this is where the original wordings of the inspired autographs are to be found.

For those who do accept this position I share a particular verse of Scripture, which the majority of textual scholars who hold to the Alexandrian line of textual transmission accept as the original reading, which affirms the essential Deity of Christ. I am referring to the following text from the Prologue to John’s Gospel:

“No one has ever seen God; the only God (monogenes theos), who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” John 1:18 ESV

Here’s how another leading Evangelical translation renders this passage:

“No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.” NET

The NET has a footnote explaining the significance of these Greek expressions:

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenēs) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenēs theos, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenēs huios, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C Θ Ψ ƒ M lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. P⁷⁵ א 33 have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in P⁶⁶ א* B C* L. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός) because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (ho ōn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos ēn ho logos) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” (NET Bible https://netbible.org/bible/John+1; emphasis mine)

Thus, according to the reading attested by the two oldest extant MSS of John 1:18 from the third century AD, i.e., P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵, as well as two of the major codices which many textual scholars hold in high esteem, namely, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Jesus is the one and only who is fully God in nature.

I now share a list of some the major English versions, which render the phrase somewhat similarly:

“No one has ever seen God [i.e., His full splendor], but God, the only conceived [and eventually born Son], who is at the Father’s side, has shown us who He is.” AUV

“No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.” BLB

“God no one has ever seen. The only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He unfolds Him.” CLV

“No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.” CSB

“No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” Common

“No one has ever seen God. God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made God known.” CEB

“No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s side — he has made him known.” CJB

“No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.” CEV

“ALOHA no man hath ever seen: the one-begotten God, he who is in the bosom of his Father, he hath declared him.” Etheridge

“No one has ever seen God. The only Son is the one who has shown us what God is like. He is himself God and is very close to the Father.” ERV

“No one has ever seen God [^CGod the Father, who is pure spirit; 4:24]. But ·God the only Son [God the one and only; the only Son who is himself God; ^TGod the only begotten] is ·very close to [by the side of; close to the heart of; ^Tin the bosom of] the Father, and he has ·shown us what God is like [made him known].” EXB

“No man has ever seen God. But God the only Son is very close to the Father. And the Son has shown us what God is like.” ICB

“No one has ever seen God. The uniquely existing God, who is close to the Father’s side, has revealed him.” ISV

“No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father—that one has made him known.” LEB

“No man has ever seen God; God, only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father—he has interpreted him.” MNT

“Nobody has ever seen God, but God has been unfolded by the divine One, the only Son, who lies upon the Father’s breast.” Moffatt

“No one has ever seen God. The only Son, himself God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” MOUNCE

“No man hath ever seen God; the only begotten God, he who is in the bosom of his Father, he hath declared him.” Murdock

“No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.” NABRE

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” NASB1995

“No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.” NASB

“No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, who has made him known.” NCB

“No one has ever seen God. But God the only Son is very close to the Father, and he has shown us what God is like.” NCV

“No one has ever seen God. But the One and Only is God and is at the Father’s side. The one at the Father’s side has shown us what God is like.” NIRV

“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” NIV 1984 Bible

“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

“No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.” NLT

“No one hath ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath made him known.” Noyes

“No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” NRSVCE

“No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” NRSVUE

“No man has ever seen God. The only begotten God-like one who is closest to the Father (in the bosom of the Father) tells us about him. (Psalm 8:5)” NSB

“No one has ever seen Hashem [Ex 33:20]. It is Elohim the Ben Yachid [who shares the nature of Hashem, the Chochman Ben Elohim at his side, see very importantly Mishle 8:30; 30:4)], it is he, the one being in the kheyk (bosom) of HaAv, this one is Hashem’s definitive midrash (exegesis).” OJB

“No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has interpreted him.” Riverside

“No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted [him].” Rotherham

“No one has ever seen God; but the one and only God, in the Father’s embrace, has made Him known.” TLV

“No man has ever yet seen God; God the Only Son, who is ever with the Father–He has revealed him.”
Twentieth_Century

“No one has ever seen God; the only son, Deity Himself, who lies upon His Father’s breast, has made him known.” Williams

FURTHER READING

JOHN 1:18 REVISITED… AGAIN!