Why does the ESV

Why does the ESV have John 1.18 as "the only God" rather than SON as other translations?

The question behind the question is how to use LOGOS to quickly find the answer.

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

John 1:18 (NIV2011) 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.

John 1:18 (NA28) Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Emphasis added.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

James Taylor

how to use LOGOS to quickly find the answer.

simply hover over the footnote...

Josh Hunt

well, i wanted a little more than, "Some mss..."

James Taylor

If you want more info, I'd use the exegetical guide and see the textual variants section of the report

JT (alabama24)

The question behind the question is how to use LOGOS to quickly find the answer.

Translation questions are tricky, and the software isn't of help. The best answer is to use the UBS handbooks.

JT (alabama24)

well, i wanted a little more than, "Some mss..."

But that IS the answer! The difference is that one translation follows one manuscript, while the other follows another. If you want to know WHY the translation follows that manuscript, you will have to dig into the translation philosophies of the translation... what you need may be in the forward material, else you may have to read something from the translators... or ask them personally!

William Gabriel

Josh, this is a really interesting question!

If you look at your na28, you can see that even it says "only" or "only begotten" (your underlined monogenes) God (theos). So if the NA28 has the right Greek, then the ESV is the right translation.

Of course, every other use of monogenes in the NT that I can find is in reference to offspring, so it appears implicit that the clause is talking about the Son, and perhaps that's why a scribe would have change it.

The UBS Handbook entry on the verse is really good, so I would second reading it.

Josh Hunt

If you want more info, I'd use the exegetical guide and see the textual variants section of the report

Perfect; this is exactly what I was looking for.

Josh Hunt

The UBS Handbook entry on the verse is really good, so I would second reading it.

UBS handbook.... does that = https://www.logos.com/product/47221/helps-for-translators

Lonnie Spencer

The UBS Handbook entry on the verse is really good, so I would second reading it.

UBS handbook.... does that = https://www.logos.com/product/47221/helps-for-translators

This is the UBS handbooks = https://www.logos.com/product/39480/ubs-handbook-series-old-and-new-testament-collection

William Gabriel

This is the UBS handbooks = https://www.logos.com/product/39480/ubs-handbook-series-old-and-new-testament-collection

Yes, this is the right product. And since you likely don't have it in your library, here are the two relevant paragraphs for that verse. It can be a way for you to see what it does before you buy it.

John 1:18
The first sentence in this verse occasions no exegetical problem, but the second sentence does present a serious textual difficulty there are several possible readings: (1) The strongest Greek manuscript evidence supports the reading “the only God,” while one of the best single Greek manuscripts reads “only God.” The inclusion of the definite article “the” (see 1:1) appears to have been an early attempt to improve on the text. There is no way to explain how the article was later omitted, if it was in the text originally. (2) Other Greek manuscripts read the only son. This reading is judged to be the easier, and, as such, perhaps a scribal assimilation to John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9. It is difficult to understand why this reading was changed, if it was the original reading. (3) “God’s only Son” (so NEB) represents an attempt to make a composite text from the alternative possibilities. (4) Another possibility is “the only one.” This solution, while attractive, has very weak manuscript evidence in its support.

If one follows the recommendation of the UBS Committee on the Greek text and accepts the first textual possibility, literally, “the only God,” the expression can be divided into two parts: (1) “the only one”; and (2) “one who is the same as the Father.” TEV accepts this choice of text and makes explicit “the only one” as the only Son, to avoid a misleading reference to Jesus Christ (of the preceding verse) as the only one who was with the Father before all time began. This reading is important, since Jesus Christ is a historical figure, the incarnation of the eternal Son (or Word).

David Thomas

Why does the ESV have John 1.18 as "the only God" rather than SON as other translations?

The question behind the question is how to use LOGOS to quickly find the answer.

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

John 1:18 (NIV2011) 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.

John 1:18 (NA28) Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Emphasis added.

from https://www.logos.com/product/3450/pillar-new-testament-commentary-the-letters-of-john

1:18. The nest of textual variants is rather complicated, but probably the right reading is monogenēs theos, ‘the unique and beloved one, [himself] God’—taking ‘God’ appositionally. No other passage puts these words together like this, which probably accounts for the change made by many copyists to monogenēs huios, ‘the unique and beloved Son’ (or, in more traditional language, ‘the only begotten Son’). That is so common an expression in John that it is hard to imagine any copyist changing ‘Son’ to ‘God’. Similarly, it is possible to explain the weakly-attested monogenēs, without either ‘Son’ or ‘God’ added, as an attempt to clear up the difficult reading with ‘God’ by simply dropping the latter; it is hard to imagine why any copyist would have added ‘God’ to monogenēs if this short form had been original. Cf. Metzger, p. 198.

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 139.

from https://www.logos.com/product/4468/the-net-bible

Notes for 1:18

45 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 Θ Σ or Υ Σ. 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 C3 Θ Ψ f1, 13 𝔐 lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. 𝔓75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in 𝔓66 א* B C* L pc. 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 ὥν (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 8814 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.

Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Jn 1:18.

Josh Hunt

I guess a better question is, in light of the strong evidence of "only begotten God." why do most translations have "Son"?

Bill Anderson

William Gabriel's response above may account for why it is translated "Son" in other mss.

David Thomas

I guess a better question is, in light of the strong evidence of "only begotten God." why do most translations have "Son"?