Jaltus, GrayP...anybody? --> John 1:18

[AVmetro]

The KJV:

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The NASB:

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Okay, people with access to a seminary, I need as much info as I can get supporting the latter translation. Textual commentaries etc,. I had argued this briefly with Ev before, but didn't have the info to progress much further. I had originally used it in a John1 argument [vs18 really completes vs1 and 14] hence the fact that Ev suddenly turned KJV-only and denounced it. :doh:

Thus far I have the following:

A T Robertson:

The only begotten Son (ho monogenēs huios). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after hōs monogenous para patros in Joh_1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in Joh_1:1. The Incarnation is stated in Joh_1:14, where he is also termed monogenēs. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is “God only begotten,” “the Eternal Generation of the Son” of Origen’s phrase.

Vincent's Word Studies:

The only begotten son (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς)
Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς, “God only begotten.”
Another and minor difference in reading relates to the article, which is omitted from μονογενὴς by most of the authorities which favor Θεὸς. Whether we read the only begotten Son, or God only begotten, the sense of the passage is not affected. The latter reading merely combines in one phrase the two attributes of the word already indicated - God (Joh_1:1), only begotten (Joh_1:14); the sense being one who was both God and only begotten.

[GrayPilgrim]

I don't have my NA27 handy, and even if I did NT textual criticism is not my thing, I can decipher but not judge the readings. For a quick response, Socrates discussed it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19899#post19899). I am sure Jaltus can give more info, but the TR does tend to expand and smooth out textual difficulties.

GP

[Jaltus]

Alrighty then, here we go.

There are actually 4 possible renderings of this verse.

1) hO MONOGENHS hUIOS

Supported by: A, third corrector of C, Theta, Psi, family 1 and 13, MT, Latin, Syriac, and 2 fathers

2) EI MH ho MONGENHS hUIOS

Supported by W (corrected), various latin, Irenaous in Latin (though some have QEOU added)

3) hO MONOGENHS QEOS

Supported by: P 75, Aleph (first corrector), 33, a few others, some fathers including Origen (early third century)

4) MONOGENHS QEOS

Supported by: P 66, Aleph (original), B, C (original), L, some others, Syriac (specific version), Origen (in part), Didache

2 can be ruled out immediately, since Washingtonius (W) is a very strange manuscript and since it is the only real support. 2 is just a slight change of 1.

1 looks to be only backed by Byzantine manuscripts, except that A pops up as the lone non-Byzantine type. We'll have to come back to this one.

3 Is fairly strong, with P 75 and Aleph being strong evidence, but the problem is that it is Aleph corrected and that there is no other evidence.

4 has the strongest support, with P 66, the original Aleph, Byzantine support, Origen in part, and the Didache. This gives 4 both the earliest attestation and the most geographically diverse. 3 is obviously just a change on 4, just as 2 is a change of 1.

1 and 4 are the best supported, but the nod obviously goes to 4 due to the age and geographic variance. That 4 is supported by Byzantine texts when 1 is preferred by that family is overwhelming evidence, since the Byzantine tends to smooth out all readings in all Byzantine families.

[AVmetro]

One KJVO argument cites Irenaeus' quote of this verse as having "Son" as opposed to "God." That is the only "problem" [if you can call it that] I forsee. As I stated previously, vs18 is a killer when it comes to John1,14. ;) Any insight on that while we're at it?

[George Blaisdell]

I have been having a hard time figuring out the big deal about theos,vs huios [both modified by monogenes]. There is, after all, only one begotten God, yes? And is not that begotten God the only-begotten? And is not the only begotten God Christ, the Son of God? And is not He the only-begotten Son [of God]?

Metro writes: vs18 is a killer when it comes to John1,14

What's so killer about that?

The most interesting part of this pericope for me is the last word, exhghsato - 'Declared' seems weak, yet who can do better? The Logos made flesh sure did a lot more than just 'declare' God... Indeed, He "has led us out into unity and oneness with Him..."

geo

[AVmetro]

Metro writes: vs18 is a killer when it comes to John1,14

What's so killer about that?


On a personal note I am not "bothered" by either. Both are fine. But if "God" is the correct translation then I want to know it.

As for John1, a cult known as the 'christadelphians' do not believe that the 'word' in John1 is "Christ" [or that he preexisted at all for that matter] but rather the "literal spoken word/plan of God". They don't believe the 'Word' was Christ till it was "made flesh". vs18 [God] really complements vs1 and 14. It sums up the whole prologue and supports our case.

God bless

[Ric]

02-20-2003 @ 11:36 PM
AVmetro:

The KJV:

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The NASB:

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Okay, people with access to a seminary, I need as much info as I can get supporting the latter translation. Textual commentaries etc,. I had argued this briefly with Ev before, but didn't have the info to progress much further. I had originally used it in a John1 argument [vs18 really completes vs1 and 14] hence the fact that Ev suddenly turned KJV-only and denounced it. :doh:


The noun "God" has no article in the Greek text, which indicates that the author is presenting God in his nature of being rather than as a person. "Deity" might be a more accurate rendering. The meaning is that no human has ever seen the essence of deity. God is invisible, not because he is unreal, but because physical eyes are incapable of detecting him. Deity as a being is known only through spiritual means that are able to receive its (his) communications. "the only begotten God" is as strong an affirmation of the deity of Christ as is John 1:1.

[George Blaisdell]

[QUOTE]02-21-2003 @ 07:42 PM
AVmetro:



> "On a personal note I am not "bothered" by either. Both are fine. But if "God" is the correct translation then I want to know it. "

I like both, and somewhat prefer the theos, because it so strongly affirms the function of God in the exegesis of humanity unto divinity, the ascent of the person to the heavens. We are led forth by God unto God, and that God is the incarnate God, the son of God, who has his being in the heart [the bosom, the breast] of the Father.

Yet the Son is equally right, just smoother, not sneezing the chunks that theos does. Theos affirms without equivocation the divinity of God the Son, and especially in the structure of the chiasm of 1-18, where ekeinos in 18 finds its correspondence in logos of 1...

> "As for John1, a cult known as the 'christadelphians' do not believe that the 'word' in John1 is "Christ" [or that he preexisted at all for that matter] but rather the "literal spoken word/plan of God". They don't believe the 'Word' was Christ till it was "made flesh". vs18 [God] really complements vs1 and 14. It sums up the whole prologue and supports our case."

May I suggest that unless you are ministering to them, you really do not need to answer these christadelphians? I mean, hair-brained theories about the meaning of scripture are a dime a dozen, and usually are not all that long lived...

geo

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

02-21-2003 @ 05:35 PM
AVmetro:

Anyone have in their reach some scholary commentary on this? Metzger etc,.?


"With the addition of P66 and P75, both of which read theos, the external support of this reading has been notably strengthened. A majority of the Committee regarded the reading mongenes huios, which undoubtedly is easier than monogenes theos, to be the result of scribal assimilation to John 3.16, 18; I John 4.9. The anarthrous use of theos (cf. 1.1) appears to be more primitive. There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when huios supplanted theos it would certainly have been added. The shortest reading, ho monogenes, while attractive because of internal considerations, is too poorly attested for acceptance as the text.

"Some modern commentators take monogenes as a noun and punctuate so as to have three distinct designations of him who makes God known (monogenes, theos, ho wn eis ton kolpon tou patros...)."

From A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT , Metzger, 2nd ed.

[George Blaisdell]

Pereynol writes:

"Some modern commentators take monogenes as a noun and punctuate so as to have three distinct designations of him who makes God known (monogenes, theos, ho wn eis ton kolpon tou patros...)."

monogenhs qeos o wn eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exhghsato.

That would certainly seem to accord with the use of ekeinos [This one (so designated)] which immediately follows the specifiers...

Who has led us out [of darkness, where no one has seen God at any time]? The one Who is only-begotten, Who is God, Who is Being unto the bosom of the Father, that's Who...

Part of the great power of John is his usage of language in this way, that it can be construed with profit in a lot of ways validly...

If we regard this phrase:
monogenhs qeos o wn eis ton kolpon tou patros
as an evocative noun phrase, like that in the opening of the Lord's prayer [pater hmwn ho en tois ouranois], then we can understand it from the middle spiraling outward: ho theos wn monogenhs eis ton kolpon tou patros...

I had missed the evocative hO WN of the Child unto the embrace of the Father...

Thank-you...

geo

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I'd like to throw an interesting twist to this if I may. Joseph Smith rewrote this verse to read

"(Joseph Smith Translation) "No man hath seen God at any time, EXCEPT he hath borne record of the Son..."

Any justification for the rewrite other than to give credence to the "first vision"?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Bump for Jaltus or GP response, I am really curious on this one.

[AVmetro]

That is rather interesting, Bill :smile:

-God bless-

[AVmetro]

While we're "*bumping*", I have a question of my own.

I have cut&pasted the following information from this website (http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/lessons/Jn1_18.htm). The citation of the ECF is the same argument E*angelion used regarding this verse at the CWS forum (He doesn't accept 'theos'). Would anyone (JR, GP, Jaltus, etc.) care to give their thoughts/comments on the below?:

--------------------------------------------------------------

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation. The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes eos" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon as being translated as "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only."

Dr. Edwin H. Palmer, who served as the executive secretary of the Committee on Bible Translation for the New International Version, had this to say concerning this passage.

"A striking case of where the KJV, following bad Greek copies of the original text, changed the original is John 1:18. The KJV says, 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, scripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus 'Son.' Using the archaic language of the KJV, the verse should read: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' Or to say it in a modern and elegant way: 'No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known' [NIV]." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker editor, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986], 143).

The statement by Dr. Palmer is interesting on several levels. First there is the question on the textual level. The phrase "monogenes theos" is found in P66 and P75, as well as Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus (and a few other manuscripts). The reading, "monogenes eos" is found in the vast majority of Greek witnesses and ancient translations. This is a classic example illustrating the two lines of manuscripts. What is interesting is that Dr. Palmer refers to the line of manuscripts which support the reading found in the NIV and NASV as being "inspired". If those of us who support the Greek text of the Authorized Version referred to it as being the correct text because this was, "a striking case of where the NIV, following bad Greek copies of the original text, changed the original in John 1:18," or, "John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God," we would be ridiculed for calling the Greek text of the KJV inspired and original. However, when they do this very thing it is considered "scholarship."

Secondly, it is interesting that Dr. Palmer attacks the KJV for using "archaic language" and yet does not cite any archaisms for this verse. Is there anything in the passage which one cannot understand because of the antiquated language of 1611?

Finally, in relation to Dr. Palmer's quote, while he accuses the KJV of using "archaic language" he then offers a reading from the NIV which the NIV no longer contains. Within the first five years of the translation, the NIV changed the passage. It use to read, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". It now reads, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has revised itself and omitted [Son].

Placing Dr. Palmer's comments aside, we are still left with the change of "only begotten" to "One and Only." Jack Finegan cites Dr. Dale Moody of Southern Seminary as evidence for the change of English words.

"This English translation (i.e. "Only begotten God") corresponds literally to the Greek, but may not bring out the full meaning of the sentence. Note that "monogenes" ("only begotten") may also be translated "only" or "unique" (cf. Dale Moody in JBL 72 [1953], pp. 213-219), and that the following word "Theos" ("God") is without the article." (Encounting New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 125).

Dr. Moody argues that the word is better translated as "unique" and thus the passage in John 1 is simply claiming Christ as a unique God and not a created god. Moody explains,

"The word translated 'only' . . . is monogenes, from monos (single) and genos (kind). Since Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1886) students have known that monogenes meant 'single of its kind, only' and that the term denotes 'the only son of God' in the Johannine writings."(God's Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 In the Revised Standard Version [Journal Of Biblical Literature, Vol 72, 1953], 213.)

There have been many translations since Thayer (1886), however, which translated monogenes "only begotten." All one need do is consult the American Standard Version (1901), The Revised Berkely Version (1959), The New American Standard Version (1960), and The New King James Version (1979) to see that "only begotten" is still in vogue. Secondly, the translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18 read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,

"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:

"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

Athanasius (373 AD) states,

"If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, 'First-born' needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations; that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brethren." (Discourse II, XXI:62)

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,

"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:

"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

The list could go on. The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."

--------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to use this thread in the future as reference if the topic ever arises with certain ATs again. :wink:

-Thanks and God bless-

[George Blaisdell]

Ric: writes:

The KJV:

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

> > John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

> The noun "God" has no article in the Greek text, which indicates that the author is presenting God in his nature of being rather than as a person. "Deity" might be a more accurate rendering.

Generally speaking, with secular Greek texts, you are right, and even here, the generics of the noun with no article is an undercurrent, but I would tend to look to the closure of the chiasm begun in 1:1, and there we have two 'Gods' - one with, and one without, the article, and the one with is God the Father, and the one without is the Logos... And here we find the closure of the chiasm with the Father [having the article] and the Son [not having the article], such that the explanation lies in the correlation of the two...

Now the issue of monogenos theos [as opposed to uios] is really a lot of noise about nothing. There is only one theos Who is begotten, and that one is begotten of the Father, in whose bosom he eternally dwells, and as well, by condescension to the human race, that he might call human beings his grothers, He is also the only born of the Virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit. So that whether God or Son is used, the meaning is the same, and the referent [Christ] is the same...

> The meaning is that no human has ever seen the essence of deity.

Even though I agree with the fact that no human has ever seen the essence of deity, I think it means that only God can get man to God... That God the Son is the means of man attaining unto God the Father...

> God is invisible, not because he is unreal, but because physical eyes are incapable of detecting him.

The Fathers write that even to noetic eyes God is not exactly 'visible', as Paul writes, of his ascent to the third heaven, that he saw things of which it is not lawful to speak. The fathers who have also been taken there report that it is profoundly NOT within human conceptual grasp...

> Deity as a being is known only through spiritual means that are able to receive its (his) communications.

Yes, we experience the uncreated and divine energies of God - eg we know God by His actions, and not according to His essence at all... And it is the nous, that constitutes the image in us which God created us in that is His image, it is this nous, this noetic ability to know, [the knowing that evaluates the actions of the intellect], that it is this nous that knows God...

> "the only begotten God" is as strong an affirmation of the deity of Christ as is John 1:1.

It is the precise counterpart of it, closing the chiastic structure it initiates.

I swear, ya gotta just LOVE John!!

geo

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

George,
Interesting post. Though it's been a while since I've looked at Gregory Palamas, you reminded me of why I appreciate him. When I first read the Triads, I responded with my heart, though we in the west don't generally think in those terms. Do you think that John himself would have made the essence/energies distinction in quite the same way?

[George Blaisdell]

pereynol: writes:

> George,
> Interesting post. Though it's been a while since I've looked at Gregory Palamas, you reminded me of why I appreciate him.

Thank-you for your kind thoughts. A person just can't read too much Gregory Palamas - And indeed, most of the Church Fathers of the last few hundred years have a LOT to say, none of it new, except for the language and culture in which it is now said.

> When I first read the Triads, I responded with my heart, though we in the west don't generally think in those terms.

No, we don't. And that is what differentiates the eastern fathers from the neo-scholasticism of western "theologians" - In Orthodoxy, a theologian is a God-seer... Not many are able to get there, or are graced to get there, or having gotten there are prone to chat about it! The Orthodox fathers all speak from the heart, and the result is a numinous clarity of style that really does spoil its readers for other kinds of 'religious' writings...

> Do you think that John himself would have made the essence/energies distinction in quite the same way?

Yes, if he had lived in the time that it was made. The affirmation of an understanding by the Church is a long and drawn out affair, for not only do you have to assemble an ecumenical council, but you have to get a unanimous vote, and then get the decision accepted by the whole Church... No small matter! There have been councils that were rejected, irreligious of the fact that they were unanimously voted for... It is the Church, you see, that is the pillar and ground of truth, and that according to the whole [kata-holon - catholic] - So that the first thing that any council has to do is affirm or deny all previous council decisions ever made, one by one, so that in this sense, even the dead get a vote, for the council does its best to address a matter according to the whole, and not just according to themselves...

So the council that ruled on the essenc-energies distinction did so by first affirming John... And by giving the formulation that they did, they affirmed that it is in accordance with all that John wrote and taught... That's how it works - They are not adding anything to the faith, they are only affirming the understanding of it that has always been from the beginning in the face of a challenge to it... In this case, in terms of energy and essence - And John never said that he was one with God's essence, or that he understood it...

I tell ya, if Protestants ever catch on to the Eastern Fathers, to read the Greeks, and the Russians, and these are getting more and more translated now into English, there will be a revolutionary transformation of the language of theology in the west... And of the understanding of salvation...

geo

[George Blaisdell]

This is a story from the early fathers, and a little of what kinds of events they lived:

When I was staying at Mt. Sinai, I met Abba Zosimos the Cilician
there. This elder renounced episcopal office and returned to his cell;
he was greatly advanced in asceticism, and this is what he told me:
When I was a young man, I left Mt. Sinai and went to Ammoniac to
stay there in a cell. There I found an elder dressed in a short-sleeved
shirt of palm-fibre. When the elder saw me, before greeting me, he
said, "Why have you come here, Zosimos? Get away from here: you cannot
stay in this place." I thought he knew me; I made a prostration before
him saying, "Of your charity, elder, whence do you know me?" He said to
me, "Two days ago, a being appeared to me who said, 'A monk is coming to
you whose name is Zosimos. Do not allow him to stay here; it is my will
to entrust him with the church of the Egyptian Babylon (Old Cairo).'"
He fell silent and left me, going about a stone's throw from me. There
he spent some two hours in prayer. Then he came to me and kissed me on
the forehead, saying, "Naturally, child, you are welcome, for God has
brought you here to bury my body." I asked him, "How many years have
you been here, abba?" "I am completing my forty-fifth year," he
replied. It looked to me as though his face were of fire. He said to
me, "Peace be with you, child; pray for me." And with that, God's
servant lay down and fell asleep in the Lord. I dug a grave and buried
him. Two days later, I went on my way, glorifying God.

John Moschus, Leimonarion (The Spiritual Meadow) 123

geo

[Jaltus]

Sorry, totally forgot about this thread.

The statement by Dr. Palmer is interesting on several levels. First there is the question on the textual level. The phrase "monogenes theos" is found in P66 and P75, as well as Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus (and a few other manuscripts). The reading, "monogenes eos" is found in the vast majority of Greek witnesses and ancient translations. This is a classic example illustrating the two lines of manuscripts. What is interesting is that Dr. Palmer refers to the line of manuscripts which support the reading found in the NIV and NASV as being "inspired". If those of us who support the Greek text of the Authorized Version referred to it as being the correct text because this was, "a striking case of where the NIV, following bad Greek copies of the original text, changed the original in John 1:18," or, "John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God," we would be ridiculed for calling the Greek text of the KJV inspired and original. However, when they do this very thing it is considered "scholarship."

Ad hom, totally useless argument.

Secondly, it is interesting that Dr. Palmer attacks the KJV for using "archaic language" and yet does not cite any archaisms for this verse. Is there anything in the passage which one cannot understand because of the antiquated language of 1611?

He did not say here, he said in general. Also a useless critique, intentionally dodging the issue at hand.

Finally, in relation to Dr. Palmer's quote, while he accuses the KJV of using "archaic language" he then offers a reading from the NIV which the NIV no longer contains. Within the first five years of the translation, the NIV changed the passage. It use to read, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". It now reads, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has revised itself and omitted [Son].

This is the only argument offered that matters. Of course the manuscript evidence was not arrived at until AFTER the NIV originally was translated, so a bit outdated. Note that papyri were not released until the later 1900s.

Placing Dr. Palmer's comments aside, we are still left with the change of "only begotten" to "One and Only." Jack Finegan cites Dr. Dale Moody of Southern Seminary as evidence for the change of English words.

"This English translation (i.e. "Only begotten God") corresponds literally to the Greek, but may not bring out the full meaning of the sentence. Note that "monogenes" ("only begotten") may also be translated "only" or "unique" (cf. Dale Moody in JBL 72 [1953], pp. 213-219), and that the following word "Theos" ("God") is without the article." (Encounting New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 125).

Dr. Moody argues that the word is better translated as "unique" and thus the passage in John 1 is simply claiming Christ as a unique God and not a created god. Moody explains,

"The word translated 'only' . . . is monogenes, from monos (single) and genos (kind). Since Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1886) students have known that monogenes meant 'single of its kind, only' and that the term denotes 'the only son of God' in the Johannine writings."(God's Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 In the Revised Standard Version [Journal Of Biblical Literature, Vol 72, 1953], 213.)

There have been many translations since Thayer (1886), however, which translated monogenes "only begotten." All one need do is consult the American Standard Version (1901), The Revised Berkely Version (1959), The New American Standard Version (1960), and The New King James Version (1979) to see that "only begotten" is still in vogue. Secondly, the translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18 read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

This is totally irrelevent. Monogenes still does not mean born even if it is only begotton. Read the church fathers quoted below and you will see that they call it heresy to say Jesus was born. Another totally useless argument.

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,

"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

This is a disputed reading. He actually quotes the other reading as well, and other copies of this book have the other reading.

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:

"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

Don't know this one.

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

This is irrelevant as it is a doctrinal statement, not a quote from scripture.

Athanasius (373 AD) states,

"If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, 'First-born' needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations; that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brethren." (Discourse II, XXI:62)

Note this is after the formulation of the creed, not before it.

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,

"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

IIRC, Ambrose is a Latin father, not Greek, and therefore is using the "proto-Byzantine" text.

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:

"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

Latin father.

The list could go on. The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."


False. In fact, the Greek fathers tend toward the other reading (note the two Cyrils). The anteNicene fathers tend toward the reading of son, according to NA 27.

[AVmetro]

Thank you very much, Jaltus. That helps tremendously. :wink:

-God bless-