There is no doubt in my mind, that the original reading of John 1:13, was a clear testimony to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. This reading is not found in any English version ( or any other language). But the evidence speaks for itself.
The Greek of the passage is very interesting:
Verse 12 ends in the Greek: “tois pisteuousin eis to onoma autou”, literally, “to those that believe on Name His”. “autou” of course is in the singular number.
John then begins verse 13 (there were no verse divisions in the original), “hos…egennethe” (Who…was born). This reading is the singular, and a clear reference to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. Support for this is given below. The reading as found in the Greek manuscripts, and Greek texts like TR, USB, N-A, is the, what I believe to be, the corrupted reading, “hoi…egennethesan”, which is in the plural number.
Other considerations from verse 13 will also show that the singluar reading is the original.
A. The phrase: “ouk ex haimaton” (not of blood). This is wrong, as the Greek is literally “not of bloods (plural)”. Dr Samuel Green, in his Greek Grammar says this: “ouk ex haimaton, not of blood, lit., bloods – a pecular phrase, with reference, perhaps, to both parents” (p.203). If this were a reference to those mentioned in verse 12, the singular would have sufficed, as it does in Acts 17:26, “made of one blood (“haimatos”, singluar) all nations of men” But, when used of the birth of Jesus Christ, He was not born of “bloods”, since He has no human father. Language that would support the singular here.
B. Then we have the phrase: “oude ek thelematos sarkos”, (nor of the will of the flesh). Literally, “not from sexual desire”.
C. And also the phrase: “oude ek thelematos andros” (nor of the will of man). Literally, “nor of the will of the male”. It is not the common Greek word used here, “anthropos” (man), which does also include “woman”. The denial here is of any involvement of the “male” , which is true in the birth of Jesus Christ, though not true in human births, which usually are the decision of both parents. Again, if this did refer to the “re-birth” of the believer, the Greek “anthropos” would have been sufficient.
We have verse 14 begin with the Greek particle, “kai” (and), which is used here as “to connect” this what follows, which that which preceeds. Again, verse 13 ends in the Greek with “egennethe” (was born), in the singular; and the “kai” (and the Word became flesh…) of the beginning of verse 14 fits this perfectly. It does seem rather forced in the Greek, to have the 13th verse end with the plural, “egennethesan”, referring to those “born-again” of verse 12, and then begin verse 14 with the copulative, “kai”.
For the singular reading, we have Tertullian as early as the middle of the second century, quote from it as part of the Gospel. Where he also charges the heretic, Valentinus, of corrupting the singular to the plural.
*****************************************************
Tertullian, De Carne Christi, Chapter XIX (160-220)
“What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?” I shall make more
use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it.
They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “Who were born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in
His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of
the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can
this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the
common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the
flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the
singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very
properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit
of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else
appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word
was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the
denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as
flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the
passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it
that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh?
For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being
“born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the
warm blood as converted by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman’s
blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance
acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We
thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual
intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the
flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on
with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His
flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being
born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such
cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it
rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the
flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse.
Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at
all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the
womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process,
— much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no
reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing
from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb.
Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing
therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason,
especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived
from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.”
And, also in chapter 24 uses the singular reading against the Ebionites: “Again,
there is an answer to Ebion in the Scripture: “Born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.””
The following evidence for the singular reading is from a very early date:
EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM (A.D.150) – Greek Work
IREANEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS (A.D.120-202) – Greek Church father
ORIGEN (A.D.185-254) - heretic - Greek
AMBROSE, BISHOP OF MALAN (A.D.339-397) – Latin
AUGUSTINE, BISHOP OF HIPPO (A.D.354-430) – Latin
THE LATIN CODEX VERONENSIS (b)- OLD LATIN (5th Century)
LIBER COMICUS (LECTIONARY) - (6th Century) – Latin
JOHN OF DAMASCUS (A.D.675-740)
The Greek of the passage is very interesting:
Verse 12 ends in the Greek: “tois pisteuousin eis to onoma autou”, literally, “to those that believe on Name His”. “autou” of course is in the singular number.
John then begins verse 13 (there were no verse divisions in the original), “hos…egennethe” (Who…was born). This reading is the singular, and a clear reference to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. Support for this is given below. The reading as found in the Greek manuscripts, and Greek texts like TR, USB, N-A, is the, what I believe to be, the corrupted reading, “hoi…egennethesan”, which is in the plural number.
Other considerations from verse 13 will also show that the singluar reading is the original.
A. The phrase: “ouk ex haimaton” (not of blood). This is wrong, as the Greek is literally “not of bloods (plural)”. Dr Samuel Green, in his Greek Grammar says this: “ouk ex haimaton, not of blood, lit., bloods – a pecular phrase, with reference, perhaps, to both parents” (p.203). If this were a reference to those mentioned in verse 12, the singular would have sufficed, as it does in Acts 17:26, “made of one blood (“haimatos”, singluar) all nations of men” But, when used of the birth of Jesus Christ, He was not born of “bloods”, since He has no human father. Language that would support the singular here.
B. Then we have the phrase: “oude ek thelematos sarkos”, (nor of the will of the flesh). Literally, “not from sexual desire”.
C. And also the phrase: “oude ek thelematos andros” (nor of the will of man). Literally, “nor of the will of the male”. It is not the common Greek word used here, “anthropos” (man), which does also include “woman”. The denial here is of any involvement of the “male” , which is true in the birth of Jesus Christ, though not true in human births, which usually are the decision of both parents. Again, if this did refer to the “re-birth” of the believer, the Greek “anthropos” would have been sufficient.
We have verse 14 begin with the Greek particle, “kai” (and), which is used here as “to connect” this what follows, which that which preceeds. Again, verse 13 ends in the Greek with “egennethe” (was born), in the singular; and the “kai” (and the Word became flesh…) of the beginning of verse 14 fits this perfectly. It does seem rather forced in the Greek, to have the 13th verse end with the plural, “egennethesan”, referring to those “born-again” of verse 12, and then begin verse 14 with the copulative, “kai”.
For the singular reading, we have Tertullian as early as the middle of the second century, quote from it as part of the Gospel. Where he also charges the heretic, Valentinus, of corrupting the singular to the plural.
*****************************************************
Tertullian, De Carne Christi, Chapter XIX (160-220)
“What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?” I shall make more
use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it.
They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “Who were born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in
His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of
the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can
this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the
common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the
flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the
singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very
properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit
of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else
appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word
was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the
denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as
flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the
passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it
that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh?
For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being
“born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the
warm blood as converted by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman’s
blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance
acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We
thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual
intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the
flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on
with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His
flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being
born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such
cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it
rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the
flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse.
Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at
all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the
womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process,
— much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no
reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing
from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb.
Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing
therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason,
especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived
from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.”
And, also in chapter 24 uses the singular reading against the Ebionites: “Again,
there is an answer to Ebion in the Scripture: “Born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.””
The following evidence for the singular reading is from a very early date:
EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM (A.D.150) – Greek Work
IREANEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS (A.D.120-202) – Greek Church father
ORIGEN (A.D.185-254) - heretic - Greek
AMBROSE, BISHOP OF MALAN (A.D.339-397) – Latin
AUGUSTINE, BISHOP OF HIPPO (A.D.354-430) – Latin
THE LATIN CODEX VERONENSIS (b)- OLD LATIN (5th Century)
LIBER COMICUS (LECTIONARY) - (6th Century) – Latin
JOHN OF DAMASCUS (A.D.675-740)