# John 1.18



## brymaes (May 6, 2004)

[quote:56363c2b36]
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten [b:56363c2b36]Son[/b:56363c2b36], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (AV from TR)

No one has ever seen God; the only [b:56363c2b36]God[/b:56363c2b36], who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV from MT)
[/quote:56363c2b36]

How does this textual variant impact the doctrine of this verse?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 7, 2004)

Very interesting question.

NIV:
18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[5] ,[6] who is at the Father's side, has made him known. 
text notes:
*5 1:18 Or the Only Begotten 
*6 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son

NASB
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. 



I don't think there is a significant impact. I do think the AV makes the meaning more clear. Either way in context, it shows a plurality in the Godhead, and that this God who is at the Father's side is Jesus, as expressed in the previous verses.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 7, 2004)

Question: In the initial post, is the ESV quotation based on the [i:67efce7bbe]Majority Text[/i:67efce7bbe] (Byzantine emphasis) or the [i:67efce7bbe]Critical Text[/i:67efce7bbe] (Alexandrine emphasis)? I know for certain the CT supports the ESV translation. The post indicates MT, but I'm not sure (doubtful even) if that was meant. I don't have an ESV or a MT Greek text handy. (Both MT and CT are distinct from the Textus Receptus, though MT is generally closer to the TR).
:wr50:
If the ESV contains a true MT reading, I am inclined to give those arguments more of a hearing than otherwise, although basically I side with the TR on this one. I think the CT's emphasis on the early-date mss blinds them to John's typical usage, and the context clues. I also think the results of the Arian heresy are behind some of the variants. 
The doctrine of the Son's deity does not rest on any one verse that expressly says so (as if one like John 20:28 could not be twisted--Arians twist them all). John 1:1 is frankly sufficient by all the rules of grammar and interpretation. The whole weight of Scripture, [i:67efce7bbe]with the support of this verse,[/i:67efce7bbe] demands the understanding--Jesus is Divine. The main thrust of this verse, however, is not his deity (which supports--indeed is part and parcel), but his role as Declarer.
I want to know where &quot;begotten&quot; went in the ESV quote. I know it has become fashionable to pooh-pooh the traditional (not to mention ancient) rendering of &lt;monogenesis&gt;, and translate/understand it as &quot;one and only&quot; or &quot;unique&quot;, but simply &quot;only&quot;???? Great. There is ordinary Greek for that. How does &quot;only&quot; adequately express this unique, quite un-ordinary term? If this is an accurate quote, I am disappointed in the ESV at this point.


----------

