Notes on God in the Gospel of John

[Clear]

The "begotten God" is the Son, the Logos of John 1:1, which is made clear in the context of John 1:1, and the following:

I agree that Jesus was the logos of John 1:1 and I agree he was the "begotten God' of John 1:18.
The difficulty lies in the concept that the is a "Begotten God" AND an "unbegotten God". If the Father is an unbegotten God and the son is a begotten God, are they the same as in the later version of the trinity or are they different as in the more ancient version of the trinity?

1:14 – "And the Logos became flesh and pitched a tent among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the Father's only one (μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός), full of grace and truth."

And I was merely pointing out that Harts translation is in error. The greek μονογενησ does not mean the "only one" but it is one of a class. Hart, for some reason overrides the original greek but he doesn't explain why he changes the text in his english paraphrasing.

There are multiple sources readily available as to why Hart chose to offer a translation of the New Testament.

While many Christian movements have created different bibles with translations to better fit their theology, my question is why Hart would purposely change the Greek Text and offer an erroneous translation of John 1:14. I assume that Hart, like other Christians wanted the text to better suit his theology.

 

[Thomas]

I agree that Jesus was the logos of John 1:1 and I agree he was the "begotten God' of John 1:18.
The difficulty lies in the concept that the is a "Begotten God" AND an "unbegotten God". If the Father is an unbegotten God and the son is a begotten God, are they the same as in the later version of the trinity or are they different as in the more ancient version of the trinity?

Well that begs the question as to what quite was the theology of the trinity in its ancient and inchoate reading of Scripture.

The short answer is no, in the Prologue, we have not arrived at any version of the Trinity – any doctrines and dogmas derived from the text will be Christological, not Trinitarian, a necessary first step, along the road to the Trinity.

And I was merely pointing out that Harts translation is in error.

I think on balance, scholars come down on the side of Hart, in that it is an accepted reading, and while there are alternative readings, his is not considered an erroneous translation.

 

[Thomas]

A point was raised by @Clear:

Thomas said regarding John 1:18: “Let me assure you, Trinitarians suffer no discomfort at all.”
Then they have no reason to try to make the sentence say something other than what it says. Why not leave the sentence to say "only begotten God" instead of rendering it "only begotten Son"? The most logical reason (to me) is that they did not like what it says and want to change it.

So I thought I would address that very point. The following is an edited version of Examining the Textual Variant in John 1:18 from the Ezra Institute.

The text variant in John 1:18. We have two traditions

A: μονογενὴς υἱός (only-begotten Son).
B: μονογενὴς θεὸς (only-begotten God).

Bear in mind "All ancient texts that were handwritten contain such variants.

The earliest texts all read the same: μονογενὴς θεὸς. Yet, the majority of texts say μονογενὴς υἱός. So here we have the earliest attested reading standing against most of the rest of the tradition. When we look at early translations into other languages, we find evidence of the antiquity of the reading “God.” Some Syriac, Coptic and Georgian manuscripts give this reading. And it is well known in the writings of the early fathers.

However ...

Cyril of Alexandria (d444CE) cites the text four times. Once he cites it as μονογενὴς θεὸς without the article, twice with the article, and once as μονογενὴς υἱός (Son)! Speaking of the variant “God” at this point, we can cite Origen, Didymus, Cyril, Clement, Eusebius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius and Serapion.

The earliest witness for μονογενὴς υἱός, Only-begotten Son, is found in Codex Alexandrinus (A), generally dated to the fifth century. However, this is by far the majority reading in the New Testament manuscript tradition. It is the reading of a number of uncial Greek texts, many minuscules, and the majority of the early writers and translations. Most interestingly, Athanasius, the great defender of the deity of Christ, consistently read μονογενὴς υἱός in his writings. Gregory of Nyssa consistently used μονογενὴς θεὸς while Basil split between the readings!

However ...

The Latin text of Irenaeus’ (late 2nd century) writings reads “Son” at least once but also has a conflated reading that could be rendered “the only begotten Son of God.” That said, the fathers’ writings were not copied nearly as widely, as often, or, importantly, as early as the NT manuscripts. So, while Irenaeus lived in the late second century, and later, Latin manuscripts of his works contain the “Son” reading, the origin of that reading could come many centuries later. The scribe could easily have assimilated the text to what he knew was the “right” reading of John 1:18, as it was presented to him in the manuscripts of his day.

So, if we go with μονογενὴς θεὸς as the original reading, how do we translate this? We could opt for the formal equivalency translation, “the only begotten God”. Likewise, we could render it “the unique God” and hope that the immediate context, “who is at the Father’s side” (literally, “in the Father’s bosom”), can help clarify what is meant by “unique.” The μονογενὴς θεὸς is the unique, personal means by which the Father has been revealed to mankind. If we wish to emphasize the meaning of monogenes, we can use “the only Son, who is God.” This would connect well with John 1:1, where the Logos (who is obviously in view in 1:18 as well) is said to be eternal (1:1a), in personal communion with the Father (1:1b), and, as to His nature, deity (1:1c).

The fact that 1:18 is the “bookend” to 1:1 should be remembered here and can assist in choosing which phrasing will most clearly communicate the original author’s intention for the reader to recognize the connection between 1:1 and 1:18. The “unique God” clearly represents the content of 1:1b and 1:1c, for only in the incarnation of the Logos can we have one who has eternally been in relationship with the Father and yet is, as to His essential nature, true deity. This is the “uniqueness” of the Incarnate one. Our language may struggle to express such sublime truths of revelation, but we must make the effort!

The Big Question
If a textual variant changes the meaning of a text, and there are multiple possible meanings, that text should not be made a central plank in a doctrinal formulation. So, does that not mean we cannot place much weight on John 1:18?

First, we should realize that whether the reading is “God” or “Son,” the text is still to be read in light of its function in the prologue of John. Identifying the Logos as how the unseen God has been made known, revealed, and “exegeted” carries great import and meaning and is a testimony to His deity. Even reading μονογενὴς υἱός at this point is pregnant with meaning, just as it is elsewhere in John. So, in reality, the question is whether we should list John 1:18 as one of those places where the term “God” is used for the Son. If we read μονογενὴς υἱός, then it is not; if we read μονογενὴς θεὸς, then it is.

But as has been mentioned, in defence of μονογενὴς θεὸς, the perfection of the parallel it provides between 1:1 and 1:18 is very weighty. No one has seen God at any time, but the only Son, who is God or the unique God, has revealed that unseen God because He is at the Father’s side. Of course, the “side of” is too weak a translation. The phrase speaks of personal intimacy, which is why the μονογενὴς θεὸς can reveal the Father perfectly. But is this not the same reality seen in John 1:1b, where the Logos (who becomes incarnate in 1:14) is eternally “face to face” with the Father? Just as the Logos is, as to His nature and deity, in 1:1c and 1:18, He is God, even in revealing the unseen Father.

So, when we look at 1:18’s function in John, we can see that the text does not present a binary “either/or” situation. It is not as if reading “Son” means the deity of Christ is absent, and reading “God” means it is present. It is present in both but with different expressions. However, the earliest reading of John’s manuscripts provides a stronger, more consistent parallel to what we find in John 1:1.

 

[Clear]

ANCIENT SACRED TEXTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN THEIR ANCIENT SACRED CONTEXTS

Clear said: “I agree that Jesus was the logos of John 1:1 and I agree he was the "begotten God' of John 1:18. The difficulty lies in the concept that the is a "Begotten God" AND an "unbegotten God". If the Father is an unbegotten God and the son is a begotten God, are they the same as in the later version of the trinity or are they different as in the more ancient version of the trinity?

Thomas replied: “Well that begs the question as to what quite was the theology of the trinity in its ancient and inchoate reading of Scripture.”

I agree. The ancient context described by the ancient Judeo-Christian in their own literature, written in their own hand, describing their own interpretations and beliefs ARE most representative of the ancient version of the trinity (and most other doctrines).

This is why I gave the examples in post #14 from both Jewish Enoch and from Christian Abbaton, describing the early Judeo-Christian doctrine of the Father and the Son as separate individuals.



2) EXAMPLES OF THE EARLIER FORM OF THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRINITY EXISTED IN BOTH JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
Clear said : “If the Father is an unbegotten God and the son is a begotten God, are they the same as in the later version of the trinity or are they different as in the more ancient version of the trinity?

Thomas replied: “The short answer is no, in the Prologue, we have not arrived at any version of the Trinity – any doctrines and dogmas derived from the text will be Christological, not Trinitarian, a necessary first step, along the road to the Trinity.”

I disagree.

Both the ancient Jewish texts describe God, and the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit long before the various later versions of the trinity were created.

For example, Jewish Enoch is from hundreds of years before Christ, yet describe God and the Messiah. The Prophet Enoch describes his ascension into heaven where he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah. The narrative describes seeing the Father thusly: “At that place, I saw “he who is of primordial days,” and his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”

In this early model, Enoch sees both the Father and Son in his vision and he then asks the angel with him regarding who the person was who accompanied the Father and why he was with the Father saying:

“And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship.” (1st Enoch 46:1-6)

The concept of the Holy spirit was also present in ancient Hebraic belief and literature as well.

“If then I have found favor before you, send the Holy Spirit to me…” Fourth Book of Ezra 14:22;

The Jewish dead sea scrolls also testify the Jews were aware of this third member of the trinity. 1QH and 4Q428 (frag7) testify to this fact thusly: “With a sure truth you have supported me, and by your holy spirit you have delighted me; even until this day.”

4Q27 (frag 3) relates: “And I, the instructor, have known you, O my God, by the spirit which you gave me, and I have listened faithfully to your wondrous council by your holy spirit. You have opened within me knowledge in the mystery of Your insight, and a spring of [Your] strength...”

4Q504 witnesses to this same belief, saying : “You have poured out Your holy spirit upon us, bringing your blessings to us.

1QS and 4Q255 and 5Q11 all confirm this testimony that the temple centric Hebrews believed in God (the Father), the Messiah (the son of man) and in the Holy Spirit, saying : “When, united by all these precepts, such men as these come to be a community in Israel, they shall establish eternal truth guided by the instruction of his holy spirit. ...They shall deviate from none of the teachings of the Law, whereby they would walk in their willful heart completely. They shall govern themselves using the original precepts by which the men of the Yahad began to be instructed, doing so until there come the Prophet and the Messiah of Aaron and Israel.”



3) HARTS PARAPHRASE OF "ONLY ONE" IN JOHN 1:18 IS AN INCORRECT TRANSLATION
Clear said: “And I was merely pointing out that Harts translation is in error.”

Thomas replied: “I think on balance, scholars come down on the side of Hart, in that it is an accepted reading, and while there are alternative readings, his is not considered an erroneous translation.
And I disagree. I do NOT think translators are oblivious to the meaning of "monogenes theos".

Let me explain why HART strange, paraphrasing, “translation” of μονογενης as “only one” is erroneous and represents a loose paraphrase.

Μονογενης is a compound word made up of μονο and γενος = μονογενης.
Translators are know that monos means “only” or “singular” and (readers are able to google and confirm this fact.)
Translators are also smart enough to know the γενος does NOT mean “one” as Hart erroneously renders it. It means a “class” or “race” or “generation”. (again, readers are able to google and confirm this fact as well).

These facts were true anciently, as well. Let me give some examples:

For example Papyri Fay 21:10 (of 134 a.d.) gives us the normal use when the text says “ειτ εν γενεσιν ειτ εν αργυριω” meaning “whether in KIND or in money”.

The same group of papyri 90:11 shows that the meaning had not changed by 234 a.d. when the texts says “χρησιν εη γενι λαχαυοσπερμου αρταβας τρις”, saying “a loan IN KIND of three attabas of vegetable seed,”.

Papyri Oxy VIII 1134:13 demonstrates this meaning had not changed by 421 when the text says: “περι αλλου τινος ειδους η γενους” “of any other SORT or KIND”

In Papyri Oxy i. 54:16 of 201 a.d. the word is used for the price of a KIND of “materials” (“εις τειμην γενων”)

In 142 a.d. the same papyri uses the word for “crops” (i.e. a KIND of produce).

In Papyri Amh II 91:15 of a59 a.d. it, again, refers to “crops” where the sentence reads: “οις εαν αιρωμαι γενεσι πλην κνγτου” meaning “with any crops I choose, except enecus”.

The word was also used to indicate "generation" or a sort of "parentage".

The point is that one can find many, many ancient examples where γενος refers to a “KIND”, or RACE, or GROUPING of things.
However, can anyone on the forum find examples where γενοσ is used for the word "one"? ANYONE?

Thomas, IF you think Hart is correct and you think Translators think Hart is actually correct rendering the word γενοσ as the word "one", Can you give us examples from the ancient Koine literature where γενος actually MEANS “ONE” as Hart attempts to render the word?
Can you give a single reference in vernacular Koine? Even one?

I'm not simply trying to give you a difficult time, rather I am trying to explain that words, anciently, had specific meaning and usage and γενοσ was not used for, nor was it the equivalent of the english word "one". Translators are normal people with normal biases that affect them in normal ways. One of these ways is that bias affects translation. We all read into the text our own theology and we cannot avoid it.

Hart is simply incorrect to attempt to render “γενος” as “one” and I cannot imagine translators of Greek that do not know this fact. I think the reason Hart offers the mistranslation is that his mis-translation reflects his personal theology since it doesn’t represent the actual Greek text.


4) A COMMON TENDENCY IS TO CHANGE THE TEXT TO REFLECT THE READERS THEOLOGY RATHER THAN CHANGE THE THEOLOGY TO REFLECT THE TEXT

While I appreciate a bit of the history regarding WHY the later texts changed the text from monogenes Theos (unbegotten God) to monogenes Uios (unbegotten Son), the fact that the actual and more original text read “monogenes Theos” and there was theological pressure to change the text reflects some sort of discomfort with leaving the text alone.

The list of texts where the text said ”monogenes theos” (only begotten God) include P75, א, 33pc, Clement, Origen, Irenaeus, P66, Vaticanus, Eph Rescriptus, Didimus, etc.

I do not think the text should be changed nor should strange and erroneous paraphrasing be created.
Instead, the ancient text should be left as it is and only correct translations created (as far as they are able).

Thus I agree with you that John 1:18 represents parallel theology to John 1:1 and think the text should be left in it's ancient context rather than interpreted (and translated) and changed to represent a theology of later eras or of a later Christian movement.

 

[Thomas]

This is why I gave the examples in post #14 from both Jewish Enoch and from Christian Abbaton, describing the early Judeo-Christian doctrine of the Father and the Son as separate individuals.

I think we can discount the "The Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death" as in any meaningful way relevant – see my comment in post #16 above.

Enoch presents the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man – as does Daniel – as two distinct persons, but does not present a third in co-equal or co-essential relation to them. The 'Two Powers' debate is precisely that – two, not three.

2) EXAMPLES OF THE EARLIER FORM OF THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRINITY EXISTED IN BOTH JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
Clear said : “If the Father is an unbegotten God and the son is a begotten God, are they the same as in the later version of the trinity or are they different as in the more ancient version of the trinity?

Thomas replied: “The short answer is no, in the Prologue, we have not arrived at any version of the Trinity – any doctrines and dogmas derived from the text will be Christological, not Trinitarian, a necessary first step, along the road to the Trinity.”

I disagree.

The Third Person of the Trinity is not mentioned in the Prologue of John.

Both the ancient Jewish texts describe God, and the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit long before the various later versions of the trinity were created.

Indeed, but not in a particular triune relation.

God and the Holy Spirit appear in Genesis 1:1-2. God speaks in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 7:11. I happen to believe in Judaism as a journey from polytheism, via henotheism, to monotheism. I also accept the Two Powers hypothesis. But I do not see any Three Power hypothesis.

I think to assume such occurrences as 'early versions' of the Trinity is anachronistic.

While I appreciate a bit of the history regarding WHY the later texts changed the text from monogenes Theos (unbegotten God) to monogenes Uios (unbegotten Son), the fact that the actual and more original text read “monogenes Theos” and there was theological pressure to change the text reflects some sort of discomfort with leaving the text alone.

I fail to see how a text that asserts the divine nature of the Son of God can reflect any sort of "discomfort".

The general opinion is that monogenes theos was changed to monogenes huios because "the Son" – as either the Son of God or Jesus' self-referral as the Son of Man, is common in the Gospel. Either reading does not change the implication of the text, so I fail to see why theological pressure should figure as a reason – in fact monogenes theos is the more definitive claim in the sense of the later Trinitarian doctrine, that superseded subordinationist theologies.

 

[Clear]

1) AUTHENTIC RELIGIOUS HISTORIANS MUST PAY ATTENTION TO THE ANCIENT LITERATURE IF THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND ANCIENT RELIGION

Thomas said: “I think we can discount the "The Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death" as in any meaningful way relevant…”

IF we are interested in learning what early Judeo-Christian religion was like, then we cannot discount what the early Judeo-Christians said they believed and their descriptions of their beliefs.

Thus religious historians MUST pay attention to the early Judeo-Christian literature if they want to understand what the early Judeo-Christians believed.


2) THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE DESCRIBES A BELIEF IN GOD THE FATHER, THE MESSIAH/SON, AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
Thomas said: “Enoch presents the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man – as does Daniel – as two distinct persons, but does not present a third in co-equal or co-essential relation to them. “

I agree that the specific sentences I quoted from Enoch were meant to simply show how they characterized the relationship of God the Father and his Son, the Messiah. I also quoted other Jewish records that describe their belief in the Holy Spirit as well. Thus, the ancient literature describe a form of the trinity of individuals existed in ancient Judaism as well. It was not an invention of the Christians.

I certainly agree with you that these three individuals in the ancient Trinity were not "co-equal" in the early versions.


3) THE ANCIENT HEBREWS ALSO SPOKE OF GOD, THE MESSIAH AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD
Clear said: “Both the ancient Jewish texts describe God, and the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit long before the various later versions of the trinity were created.”
Thomas replied: “Indeed, but not in a particular triune relation.”

I disagree.

The Ancient Jewish claim that there was a God who was a father, a Messiah who was the Son of Man, and a Spirit sent from God to help guide mankind add up to three individuals and not two. However, I would agree that the more modern, and popular Christianity of 3 individuals being only one person (i.e. 3=1) is not the same as the ancient trinity.



4) ANCIENT HEBREW RELIGION EVOLVED FROM POLYTHEISM, TO HENOTHEISM, AND FINALLY ARRIVED AT MONOTHEISM
Thomas said: “God and the Holy Spirit appear in Genesis 1:1-2. God speaks in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 7:11. I happen to believe in Judaism as a journey from polytheism, via henotheism, to monotheism. “

I agree with this specific of Hebrew religion Thomas.


5) THOMAS DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THREE POWERS BUT ONLY IN TWO POWERS
Thomas said: “I also accept the Two Powers hypothesis. But I do not see any Three Power hypothesis.”

O.K.


6) WHO IS BEING "ANACHRONISTIC", THE ANCIENT CHRISTIAN TRINITY OR THE MODERN CHRISTIAN TRINITY?
Thomas: “I think to assume such occurrences as 'early versions' of the Trinity is anachronistic.”

To claim that Religious historians and the ancient Judeo-Christian literature is “anachronistic” feels strange (to me).
Can you explain why you think religious historians and early Judeo-Christian literature is “anachronistic”?



7) WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING MOTIVE TO INTRODUCE ERROR INTO TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT?
Clear said: “While I appreciate a bit of the history regarding WHY the later texts changed the text from monogenes Theos (unbegotten God) to monogenes Uios (unbegotten Son), the fact that the actual and more original text read “monogenes Theos” and there was theological pressure to change the text reflects some sort of discomfort with leaving the text alone.”

Thomas said: “I fail to see how a text that asserts the divine nature of the Son of God can reflect any sort of "discomfort".”

The “discomfort” I describe, comes from the potential implication that there are two Gods instead of one.
The ambiguity of a single God being BOTH "begotten" AND "unbegotten" can cause theological dissonance because it can been read to imply two Gods, one who is Unbegotten and one who is begotten.



8) DO "BEGOTTEN" AND "UNBEGOTTEN" MEAN THE SAME THING. CAN A SINGLE GOD BE BOTH "BEGOTTEN" AND "UNBEGOTTEN"?
Thomas said: “Either reading does not change the implication of the text, so I fail to see why theological pressure should figure as a reason – in fact monogenes theos is the more definitive claim in the sense of the later Trinitarian doctrine, that superseded subordinationist theologies.”

It depends upon how the text is interpreted. The Father as an “unbegotten” God is fairly clear as a stand alone phrase.
However, when one adds a “begotten” God to the mix, the ambiguity increases since it is illogical to be both “begotten” and “unbegotten” at the same time.

 

[Thomas]

1) AUTHENTIC RELIGIOUS HISTORIANS MUST PAY ATTENTION TO THE ANCIENT LITERATURE IF THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND ANCIENT RELIGION

Thomas said: “I think we can discount the "The Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death" as in any meaningful way relevant…”

IF we are interested in learning what early Judeo-Christian religion was like, then we cannot discount what the early Judeo-Christians said they believed and their descriptions of their beliefs.

Thus religious historians MUST pay attention to the early Judeo-Christian literature if they want to understand what the early Judeo-Christians believed.

Which is why I discount the Abbaton – because it's a 7th century pseudo-narrative – it tells us something about the 7th century, but can have no authoritative value in regard to the beliefs of the early Judeo-Christian belief.

2) THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE DESCRIBES A BELIEF IN GOD THE FATHER, THE MESSIAH/SON, AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
Thomas said: “Enoch presents the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man – as does Daniel – as two distinct persons, but does not present a third in co-equal or co-essential relation to them. “

I agree that the specific sentences I quoted from Enoch were meant to simply show how they characterized the relationship of God the Father and his Son, the Messiah.

Quite. As does Daniel.

I also quoted other Jewish records that describe their belief in the Holy Spirit as well.

Yes, clearly, from Genesis 1:2 on ...

Thus, the ancient literature describe a form of the trinity of individuals existed in ancient Judaism as well. It was not an invention of the Christians.

No, this does not necessarily follow, we might look and read a trinitarian implication in the text, but then I would suggest we might well be reading into the text something that is not there – in short theior contextual understanding, as opposed to ours.

And in those particular texts in Enoch and Daniel, I find no firm evidence to suppose a triune, although ample evidence to speak of God in the plural, and of a divine hierarchy – God, a vice-regent (as per Daniel and Enoch), the Spirit of God, the angel of God, angels, and so on.

Christians can, and do, 'read' the Trinity back into the Hebrew Scriptures, but that would be wrong.

Furthermore, there is no explicit or implicit trinitarian reference in the Prologue of John. It's only later, in the discourses on the Paraclete, that we can discern the Holy Spirit in a direct relation to the Father and the Son.

I certainly agree with you that these three individuals in the ancient Trinity were not "co-equal" in the early versions.

There you go then ... by that token, we can then include angels and other theophanic appearances and we're into multiple deities.

3) THE ANCIENT HEBREWS ALSO SPOKE OF GOD, THE MESSIAH AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD
Clear said: “Both the ancient Jewish texts describe God, and the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit long before the various later versions of the trinity were created.”
Thomas replied: “Indeed, but not in a particular triune relation.”

I disagree.

OK. Can you offer references from the Hebrew Scriptures?

The Ancient Jewish claim that there was a God who was a father, a Messiah who was the Son of Man, and a Spirit sent from God to help guide mankind add up to three individuals and not two.

Well there is an open question ... But the Jews never arrived at a trinitarian doctrine in light of that, as far as I know.

However, I would agree that the more modern, and popular Christianity of 3 individuals being only one person (i.e. 3=1) is not the same as the ancient trinity.

BUT THAT IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY, ANCIENT OR MODERN.

The formula is Three Persons in One God, not Three Persons in One Person – your wording confuses the issue.

5) THOMAS DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THREE POWERS BUT ONLY IN TWO POWERS
Thomas said: “I also accept the Two Powers hypothesis. But I do not see any Three Power hypothesis.”

O.K.

LOL, I believe in the Christian Trinitarian Three Powers hypothesis as formulated in the Councils ... but can you show me a Jewish 'Three Powers hypothesis' spoken of by Segal, Heiser, Boyarin, or indeed elsewhere?

6) WHO IS BEING "ANACHRONISTIC", THE ANCIENT CHRISTIAN TRINITY OR THE MODERN CHRISTIAN TRINITY?
Thomas: “I think to assume such occurrences as 'early versions' of the Trinity is anachronistic.”

To claim that Religious historians and the ancient Judeo-Christian literature is “anachronistic” feels strange (to me).

You misunderstand me ... I'm suggesting you are being anachronistic, reading a doctrine onto the ancient text.

7) WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING MOTIVE TO INTRODUCE ERROR INTO TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT?
Clear said: “While I appreciate a bit of the history regarding WHY the later texts changed the text from monogenes Theos (unbegotten God) to monogenes Uios (unbegotten Son), the fact that the actual and more original text read “monogenes Theos” and there was theological pressure to change the text reflects some sort of discomfort with leaving the text alone.”

Thomas said: “I fail to see how a text that asserts the divine nature of the Son of God can reflect any sort of "discomfort".”

The “discomfort” I describe, comes from the potential implication that there are two Gods instead of one.
The ambiguity of a single God being BOTH "begotten" AND "unbegotten" can cause theological dissonance because it can been read to imply two Gods, one who is Unbegotten and one who is begotten.

Let me be clear, you say:
"the fact that the actual and more original text read “monogenes Theos” and there was theological pressure to change the text reflects some sort of discomfort with leaving the text alone.”
And I say:
There is no evidence, therefore no fact, of theological pressure to change the text – unless you can provide evidence.

The fact that at least one early commentary used both versions, hardly argues in support of 'theological dissonance' or 'theological pressure'.
The fact is that either version was acceptable – because the one does not theologically change or in any meaningful way impact the other.

So I say again – there was no discomfort, this is your imagination.

There was plenty of discussion around the idea of subordinationism, which in extremis led to a major 4th century dispute attributed to Arius (although he rapidly became something of a hapless – and indeed, dead – bystander in the arguments attributed top him), but this concerned not so much the divinity of the Son, that was a given, but whether the divinity of the Son was the same as that of the Father – but we have no clear reason to suppose, in light of this, editors changed 'God' to 'Son', because that would have served the heresiarch cause.

8) DO "BEGOTTEN" AND "UNBEGOTTEN" MEAN THE SAME THING. CAN A SINGLE GOD BE BOTH "BEGOTTEN" AND "UNBEGOTTEN"?
Thomas said: “Either reading does not change the implication of the text, so I fail to see why theological pressure should figure as a reason – in fact monogenes theos is the more definitive claim in the sense of the later Trinitarian doctrine, that superseded subordinationist theologies.”

It depends upon how the text is interpreted. The Father as an “unbegotten” God is fairly clear as a stand alone phrase.
However, when one adds a “begotten” God to the mix, the ambiguity increases since it is illogical to be both “begotten” and “unbegotten” at the same time.

Well clearly John thought God the only-begotten Son was God, as the father is God, but what distinguishes them is relation, which is external to the Godhead.

Verse 18:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Word-by-word translation would be something like:
"god no one has seen ever yet (the) only begotten god the (one) being in the bosom of the father he has made (him) known" or
"god no one has seen at anytime a unique god the (one) being in the bosom of the father he has made known"
(according to versions, there are others available)

Your question could well be how can 'God', the only-begotten One, be in the bosom of 'the Father', who also must be God?

So the point rather is, the doctrine of the Trinity explains what to some might appear illogical, in a logical manner, ie same in essence, different in relation.