Why does ESV omit "begotten" in John 1:18 & 3:16

Clifford, the ESV does not omit monogeneÒs. instead it uses monogeneÒs theos (only God) instead of ho monogeneÒs huios (the only Son). there is also another option where monogeneÒs theos is preceded by the article. the debate is primarily about the correct reading between the various options.

Maybe you are looking for a more explicit translation of "monogeneÒs". However, "only", "one and only", "only begotten", "only one" are all acceptable translations. The emphasis should be on the interpretation of the meaning of  "only" as in in what way is he "only". This is really the job of Greek lexicons like BDAG which understands  as "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind)" 

In fact, the reading adopted by the ESV makes a stronger case for the deity of Christ in a way that  parallels John 1.

Since this is not the place of theological discussions ...

I recommend that you purchase if you have not already done so Greek Apparatuses (the only for the NA 27 or the upcoming NA28 in Logos or the Center for New Testament Textual Studies (CNTTS) New Testament Critical Apparatus is the most detailed and comprehensive critical apparatus on the market and is coming to Logos)  and especially  textual commentaries on the Greek NT (see below)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger

A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament which is more user friendly as it "was especially designed for translators who have not received formal training in textual criticism"

the NET Bible also has notes that user friendly and shed light on the issue (also available free online).

My preferred textual commentary is the New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Philip Comfort is not in Logos yet but  is more detailed than Metzger above.

I just received a post response that informed me that "we" are not supposed to post theological questions here.  I sincerely apologize.  I love Logos and wasn't trying to break the rules.  Thank you.

Hi Clifford,

In addition to the helpful responses from both Graham and Alain, I would suggest that you run a passage report (using the passage guide). This should identify relevant entries in any commentaries in your library. I note, in particular, that the USB Handbook on the Gospel of John has a helpful discussion regarding this point in relation to John 1:18. I am unsure with regards to the content of your library, but, if you are interested in picking up the USB series, this can be acquired most cost effectively via one of the base packages ('value' is, of course, relative to your interests and needs).

Blessings

It's interesting that what should be a fairly straight-forward statement is banned on a Bible-based (Logos BIBLE Software) forum.

But of course we all know the reason.  What's so interesting is the bouncy translations are still bouncing even after a century of post-AV.  For the curious, use your text comparison tool to watch the opinions.  As usual, the Old Syriac and Sahidic reflect an earlier theology (see Ignatius for the later theology).

Note especially the old/new NIVs.

If you right-click on "only" in the ESV, it will give you the roots of μονογενη, which are μονος "only, alone" and γινομαι "to come into existence." So a strict adherence to the root would give you "only existing son."

Now, if you took the root of μονογενη to be γενναω, "become the parent of, beget," you would get "only begotten son." To make things more confusing, Logos gives the root of γενναω to be γινομαι.

In settling on a meaning, actuality should probably play a role. Yeishuu`a clearly is not the only (viz. Job 1:6, Job 2:1) son of  YHWH to come into existence, but He is His only begotten Son.

It will always need some explanation whether it's "Only" or "Only Begotten." To me, the latter makes the explaining more simple, than just "only," but nothing that cannot be explained to someone with an honest heart. [:)]

When emphasizing begetting, one is placing too much emphasis upon the literalness of the etymology of the word.  Rather than engage in etymological pursuits, one must determine how the word was used at the time.  The fact that Jn 1.18 couples μονογενὴς with θεὸς indicates that the writer intended for it to be taken with respect to God in 1.18 rather than to the son (Son).  On the other hand, in Jn 3.16 we have τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ which couples it with the Son.  One would hardly expect a Jew to speak of God as having been begotten so it seems fairly obvious that the understanding in 1.18 would be only or unique in opposition to pagan views that there were multiple gods (some of which were begotten according to the mythology).