John One Eighteen Calls Christ “God Begotten;” But that Translation Smells Kinda Rotten

Last updated on: November 23, 2018 at 12:44 pm by Kermit Zarley

John One Eighteen Calls Christ “God Begotten;” But that Translation Smells Kinda Rotten 2018-11-23T12:44:54-07:00 Kermit Zarley

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Bible versions are based on a Hebrew and Greek text which textual critics compile from extant, ancient manuscripts (MSS) that were hand-copied by professional scribes. Many modern Bible versions occasionally provide alternate readings in footnotes which show that a word or phrase in the Hebrew or Greek text can be translated differently than what translators have put in their versions. Sometimes, these alternate readings concern textual variants because the MSS disagree. This is the case with John 1.18.

The Gospel of John begins with a prologue consisting of 18 verses. The last verse, John 1.18, reads as follows in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), “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 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates similarly and provides a footnote regarding the second clause which reads, “Other ancient authorities read It is an only Son, God, or It is the only Son.” The first alternate reading in this footnote indicates that some ancient MSS (and perhaps patristic writings that quote this text) have both huios (Son) and theos (God) in this clause. The second alternate reading indicates that some MSS have only huios. This second alternative is reflected in the King James Version (KJV), which reads, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Thus, the NASB and most modern versions call Jesus “God” in John 1.18, whereas the KJV does not.

Since this textual variance is complex, especially for those who do not know New Testament (NT) Greek, we can only highlight the major points of this issue. Biblical scholar Bart Erhman alleges that scribes changed this text to read “only begotten God” so that it would align with their theology.

The NRSV’s “only” in John 1.18 translates monogenes in the Greek text, whereas the other two versions render it “only begotten,” which is a traditional translation that goes back to church father Jerome in his Latin Vulgate (unigenitus). Many scholars rightly accuse Jerome of not being objective in doing so, alleging that he did it to support the orthodox doctrine of eternal generation and thereby oppose Arianism.

C.S. Lewis reflects this traditional translation of John 1.18, and thus the notion of eternal generation, in his popular book Mere Christianity. As did church fathers, he reasons metaphysically by saying, “What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man.” The fallacy of this reasoning is that God is not a physical being.

Monogenes does not mean “only begotten,” but literally “one-of-a-kind.” There was a Greek word for “only begotten,” which was monogenetos. When monogenes appears in the NT with huios—in John 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9—it means “one-of-a-kind Son.”

The following reasons support monogenes theos as the authentic text in John 1.18:

Theos has superior attestation in all three classes of witnesses: Greek MSS, patristic writings, and ancient Bible versions.
Theos is the more difficult reading. A principle of textual criticism is that the more difficult, complex, or harsh variant is likely the original, since scribes more likely supplanted theos with huios to achieve greater simplicity and smoothness.
Theos is the more suitable climax to the prologue by corresponding to John 1.1c: “and the Word was God.” But this traditional translation of this clause is questionable.

The following reasons deny that monogenes theos is the correct text in John 1.18:

Manuscript (MS) attestation for monogenes theos is mostly in only one of the five MS families—Alexandrian—but ho monogenes huios is widespread in all MS families.
During the ante-Nicene era, Alexandria, Egypt, was the center in the Roman Empire of belief that Jesus was fully God. Consequently, non-professional scribes living in Alexandria may have purposely changed huios to theos due to their Christology.
The visible Jesus being God is incompatible with no human ever seeing God.
Monogenes theos does not appear anywhere else in the entire NT.
Monogenes theos “in the bosom of the Father” is strange and nowhere else in the NT.
Monogenes theos is too developed as a theological concept to occur this early.
Monogenes theos is incompatible with the purpose of this gospel (John 20.31).

Reasons for ho mongenes huios being correct in John 1.18 are as follows:

Monogenes huios conforms to Johannine usage (John 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9).
Theos is likely a scribal error due to the similarity in abbreviations of it and huios.
A scribe could mistakenly have substituted theos for huios due to the immediately preceding proximity of theou.
Being “in the bosom of the Father” is a Semitic idiom reflecting the child-father relationship, suggesting huios. The Son in the Father links to the repeated Father-Son motif and their mutual indwelling (John 10.38; 14.10-11, 20).
A corollary Johannine theme is that the Son declares, explains, or makes the Father known by speaking and acting on his behalf (John 3.11-13; 5.19; 14.9-11; 15.15).

The three external witnesses and modern scholarship clearly favor monogenes theos (“[the] only God”) as the original text in John 1.18, in which Jesus is called “God.” On the other hand, modern English versions and the internal evidence of this gospel support ho monogenes huios (“the only Son”), in which Jesus is not called “God.”

In conclusion, the arguments are about evenly divided for either variant in John 1.18. But the following point is decisive: if John 1.1c, 5.18, 10.30-38, and 20.28 are interpreted as not calling Jesus theos (“God”), John 1.18 cannot be linked to any corresponding text in this gospel. And linkage is the prologue’s purpose. Since ho monogenes huios clearly links to John 3.16 and v. 18, the authentic Greek text of John 1.18 most likely is not monogenes theos but ho monogenes huios, so that it does not call Jesus “God.”

…………….

To see a list of titles of 130+ posts (2-3 pages) that are about Jesus not being God in the Bible, with a few about God not being a Trinity, at Kermit Zarley Blog click “Chistology” in the header bar. Most are condensations of my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ. See my website servetustheevangelical.com, which is all about this book, with reviews, etc. Learn about my books and purchase them at kermitzarley.com. I was a Trinitarian for 22 years before reading myself out of it in the Bible.

Christology

Bible manuscript variants

eternal generation

monogenes theos? monogenes huios

Previous Post

August 13, 2013

Israel Does It Again: Torpedoes the Peace Process

Next Post

August 15, 2013 The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process Is Revived

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Angels Billy Graham Blog Description Book Reviews Christian Living Christianity Christology Church History Current Events Deity of Christ? Disarmament Eschatology Evangelicalism Ezekiel 38-39 Film Reviews God Golf Gospel Harmonization Health History Holy Spirit Incarnation? Interview Islam Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Jesus Last Empire Literary Announcements Major Championship Winners Masters Monotheism My Books New Testament Old Testament Politics Primitive Weapons Ryder Cup Science Society of Biblical Literature The Bible The Restitution of Jesus Christ Trinitarianism Trinity? Uncategorized Unconditional Love? War on Terrorism

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Thomas doubted Jesus' resurrection until he saw and touched Jesus' wounds.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE

Books by This Author Books by Kermit Zarley Blog

See All Titles »