# The ESV and the word "begotten"



## KSon (Nov 13, 2009)

This thread is not meant to be an ESV-bashing session. It is the version that the elders of my church have chosen as the one used from the pulpit and for teaching. I am trying (as a KJV/NKJV guy) to familiarize myself with it, as my opportunities to teach are gradually increasing.

My questions center on the word _monogenēs_, particularly at John 1:18 and 3:16. In each of these verses, in both the TR and NA/UBS, the word appears twice, back-to-back. The KJV, NKJV and NASB translate this as "only begotten" in both places. The ESV translates it as "only" in both places. This leads me to two questions that perhaps you can help me with:

1. Why does the ESV translate the two Greek words with just one English word? Apparently the translators of the KJV, NKJV, and NASB felt compelled to translate both words.

2. Are there any theological ramifications from choosing not to translate the additional word?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 13, 2009)

I'm not surprised. I don't know exactly why they translated it that way and I sure hope someone sheds light on it, but there are some things I do know that I feel I should tell you. You will find a lot more differences than just the ones you mentioned I'm afraid. 

In the ESV there are 16 fewer verses in the New Testament than in the KJV.

These Verses:

Matthew 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24.

Are not in the ESV.

The following link shows 300 changes that were made in modern versions: Bible Version Comparison Chart unfortunatley it was written before the ESV was but it gives a good idea of how different the versions really are.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 13, 2009)

I'm no Greek scholar and I just read a commentary (Robertson's word pictures) and they say the best Greek manuscript actually has it _monogenēs theos_, which means (God only begotten). I'm not sure why the ESV only leaves us with "only" but for me it doesn't take away any meaning to either verse.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 14, 2009)

KSon said:


> This thread is not meant to be an ESV-bashing session. It is the version that the elders of my church have chosen as the one used from the pulpit and for teaching. I am trying (as a KJV/NKJV guy) to familiarize myself with it, as my opportunities to teach are gradually increasing.
> 
> My questions center on the word _monogenēs_, particularly at John 1:18 and 3:16. In each of these verses, in both the TR and NA/UBS, the word appears twice, back-to-back. The KJV, NKJV and NASB translate this as "only begotten" in both places. The ESV translates it as "only" in both places. This leads me to two questions that perhaps you can help me with:
> 
> ...




At John 1:14 the ESV, *following the RSV from which it was patterned*, gives the irresponsible rendering of “only” for the textually undisputed μομογενης which according to the Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament “means ‘of sole descent’ i.e., without brothers or sisters. This gives the sense of only-begotten. The reference is to the only child of one’s parents, primarily in reference to them” [TDNT IV.738].

NKJ John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

NAS John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of egrace and ftruth.

ASV John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

ESV John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

RSV John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Such examples are innumerable.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 14, 2009)

*Bump*



kson said:


> this thread is not meant to be an esv-bashing session. It is the version that the elders of my church have chosen as the one used from the pulpit and for teaching. I am trying (as a KJV/NKJV guy) to familiarize myself with it, as my opportunities to teach are gradually increasing.
> 
> My questions center on the word _monogenēs_, particularly at john 1:18 and 3:16. In each of these verses, in both the tr and na/ubs, the word appears twice, back-to-back. The KJV, NKJV and NASB translate this as "only begotten" in both places. The esv translates it as "only" in both places. This leads me to two questions that perhaps you can help me with:
> 
> ...


----------



## KSon (Nov 14, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> KSon said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is not meant to be an ESV-bashing session. It is the version that the elders of my church have chosen as the one used from the pulpit and for teaching. I am trying (as a KJV/NKJV guy) to familiarize myself with it, as my opportunities to teach are gradually increasing.
> ...



Bob, thank you for this. I forgot to include John 1:14 in my initial post.


----------



## KSon (Nov 14, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> I'm no Greek scholar and I just read a commentary (Robertson's word pictures) and they say the best Greek manuscript actually has it _monogenēs theos_, which means (God only begotten). I'm not sure why the ESV only leaves us with "only" but for me it doesn't take away any meaning to either verse.



What stirred this up in my mind was a lecture I was watching for my Symbolics class (a study of the LBCF), taught by Sam Waldron. In the particular lecture, he was addressing the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. Among the arguments he listed for eternal generation was that "the Bible teaches the 'begotten-ness' of the Son explicitly". So at the root of my question regarding theological ramifications of that word not being translated was that argument presented by Waldron.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 14, 2009)

This is a reletively recent controversy, and is not informed by textual basis, regardless of what an Arminian, Dispensational, rock music is a 666 phenomena, "ministry" (and I use the word deliberately ironically for such fools) has to say.

It has to do with the translation of the Greek word μονογενες.

The main Classical Attic Greek dictionary, Liddell & Scott, gives the following as its definition of _monogenes _(μονογενες), a word which also occurs in both Attic (e.g. Plato) and Ionic (e.g. Hesiod) Greek: 

Showing that at least the Classical standard at the turn of the century viewed monogenes as being derived neither from gennao (γεννάω) or _genos _(γενος), but _gignomai _(γίγνομαι), which has closer roots to _gennao_, as also shown by LDS (Middle):



> monogenes, Ep. and Ion. monounogenes (gignomai). _only begotten, single_, Hesiod, Herodotus, etc.; monogenes haima (μονογενες αἱμα), _one and the same blood_, Euripides.
> 
> γίγνομαι (gignomai),
> 
> *I.* abs., _come into being_ opp. (εἰ̈ναι), Emp.17.11, Pl._Phd._102e, cf. _Ti._29a; and so,* 1.* of persons, _to be born_, neon gegaos (νεον γεγαος),[FONT=Sgreek,Sgreek Fixed,Sgreek Medium] [/FONT]new _born_, Od.19.400; [FONT=Sgreek,Sgreek Fixed,Sgreek Medium] [/FONT]_born_ (and so _living_),[FONT=Sgreek,Sgreek Fixed,Sgreek Medium] [/FONT]_at our birth_, etc..


 
And finally, for example, translators of Aeschylus' Agamemnon have translated monogenes thus:


"The saviour forestay of the ship, the high roof's Ground-prop, son *sole-begotten* to his father" (trans. Robert Browning)

"the savior forestay of the ship, firm-based pillar of the lofty roof, *only-begotten *son of a father" (trans. H. Weir Smyth)


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 14, 2009)

Is it me or is the ESV translation very involved with textual criticism. So much so they leave out verses, question translation of words (like the above), etc.


----------



## Archlute (Nov 14, 2009)

Fred - how are you getting that to post from LSJ? Are you able to cut and paste directly from Bibleworks?


----------



## KSon (Nov 14, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> Is it me or is the ESV translation very involved with textual criticism. So much so they leave out verses, question translation of words (like the above), etc.



Andrew,

That is an interesting question. Again, as the elder-affirmed version at my church, I am not seeking to denigrate the translation, but I wonder what the translators saw differently, allowing them to keep the rendering from the RSV, from what those who translated the Geneva-KJV-ASV-NASB-NKJV-NASBU saw, all of which go beyond "only" in their translation to English. Perhaps I can send the question to Crossway and they can route it to the appropriate person(s).


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 14, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Fred - how are you getting that to post from LSJ? Are you able to cut and paste directly from Bibleworks?



No, I actually typed it myself by hand from a hardbound copy.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 14, 2009)

When using black remember those of us using the Dark Metal skin cannot read it.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 14, 2009)

Begotten isn't anecessarily the only way to translate that word into English. Begotten is certainly the most accurate translation but when carrying over into English the term _only one_ would be understood by many laymen to mean roughly the same thing.
I am not aware of anyone being converted to the position that Christ is not the only begotten simply because of they read the ESV or even the RSV.


----------



## TaylorWest (Nov 14, 2009)

I image it's because Crossway is trying to be more consistent in their translation of μονογενὴς than the KJV is. You should probably be asking why the KJV leaves off the 'begotten' in Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. If 'begotten' is a necessary component of μονογενὴς, then the KJV should have brought that through. If it's not, then why fuss over the ESV's choice?


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 14, 2009)

TaylorWest said:


> I image it's because Crossway is trying to be more consistent in their translation of μονογενὴς than the KJV is. You should probably be asking why the KJV leaves off the 'begotten' in Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. If 'begotten' is a necessary component of μονογενὴς, then the KJV should have brought that through. If it's not, then why fuss over the ESV's choice?



Might it have something to do with Him of Whom the begottenness is predicated in those places where the KJV, NKJ, NAS, ASV render it in the English?



> Only Jn. uses μονογενής to describe the relation of Jesus to God. Mk. and Mt. have ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός; Pl. uses τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν at R. 8:3, τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ at R. 8:32, and πρωτότοκος at R. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18, but not μονογενής. The further step taken by Jn. to describe Jesus corresponds to the fact that believers who as children of God are called υἱοὶ θεοῦ — the same word as is applied to Jesus — in Mt., Pl. etc., are always called τέκνα θεοῦ in Jn., 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn. 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2, while υἱός is reserved for Jesus. Jn. emphasizes more strongly the distinction between Jesus and believers and the uniqueness of Jesus in His divine sonship. It is not that Jesus is not unique in this sonship for Mt., Pl. etc. also. His Messiahship proves this. But Jn. puts it in an illuminating and easily remembered formula which was taken up into the baptismal confession and which ever since has formed an inalienable part of the creed of the Church. To μονογενής as a designation of Jesus corresponds the fact that God is the πατὴρ ἴδιος of Jesus, Jn. 5:18; for ἴδιος means to be in a special relation to Jesus which excludes the same relation to others.


- Kittel Theological Dictionary of the New Testament


----------



## KSon (Nov 14, 2009)

TaylorWest said:


> I image it's because Crossway is trying to be more consistent in their translation of μονογενὴς than the KJV is. You should probably be asking why the KJV leaves off the 'begotten' in Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. If 'begotten' is a necessary component of μονογενὴς, then the KJV should have brought that through. If it's not, then why fuss over the ESV's choice?



*Last official disclaimer about not having a secret anti-ESV agenda*

Would not KJV/NKJV/NASB be making a proper distinction, seeing that the Greek word in question appears twice, back-to-back, in the noted verses in John that refer to Christ?


----------



## ADKing (Nov 14, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> I am not aware of anyone being converted to the position that Christ is not the only begotten simply because of they read the ESV or even the RSV.



Once we start removing or re-translating passages from which our doctrines are derived it is only a matter of time before people, who can no longer connect the dots from their English translations, start forgetting the doctrine and eventually, even if it is not outright rejected (which it actually is in some "reformed" circles today) it will die the death of neglect. It is very important to retain only-begotten for this reason.


----------



## TaylorWest (Nov 14, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Might it have something to do with Him of Whom the begottenness is predicated in those places where the KJV, NKJ, NAS, ASV render it in the English?



Translators should try as much as possible to translate and not interpret. Pastors and teachers should study church history and expose that which is significant in the text.

For my part, I appreciate this footnote in the NET at John 3:16,



> Although this word is often translated "only begotten," such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12 , 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham's only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means "one-of-a-kind" and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (te,kna qeou/, tekna theou), Jesus is God's Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 14, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Fred - how are you getting that to post from LSJ? Are you able to cut and paste directly from Bibleworks?
> ...



You can do that?!


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 14, 2009)

Christopher Taylor wrote



> Translators should try as much as possible to translate and not interpret. Pastors and teachers should study church history and expose that which is significant in the text



This statement is fine as far as it goes, but I do not believe it will stretch as far as you would like it to.

How would you translate *θεος* in these two verses? Does your theology impinge upon your translation?

2 Cor 4:4 “… *g*od of this *ο θεος του* age
Eph 1:17 “… *G*od of *ο θεος του* our Lord

Did you read the quotation from T.D.N.T. regarding μονογενης as used by John?


----------



## TaylorWest (Nov 14, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> This statement is fine as far as it goes, but I do not believe it will stretch as far as you would like it to.
> 
> How would you translate *θεος* in these two verses? Does your theology impinge upon your translation?
> 
> ...



I think you are trying to imply that any decent translator should put the 'g' of god in caps when the referent is the one true god. However, the Greek text you yourself have shown does not follow your preference. You've used the lower case θ in both 2 Cor 4:4 as well as in Eph 1:17, and rightly so, since Paul did likewise (in the sense that he let context indicate which god he was referring to and not the format of the font: every letter in Paul's letters were in all caps).

That said, the modern American Christian convention of differentiating between God and the gods is not necessarily bad. I just wouldn't require it and I certainly wouldn't hold it against a translator for not following this convention. For instance, who would condemn the greatest English translator the world has ever known, William Tyndale, for failing to follow this convention?


----------



## Bad Organist (Dec 7, 2009)

Hi,

If the ESV translators find the word "begotten" distasteful regarding Christ in John 3:16, they left it in elsewhere.

Check out Psalm 2:7 and referenced in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. Unless I am grossly mistaken, these verses speak the Father's words concerning Christ the begotten Son.

Both the NIV and HCSB get rid of the word begotten altogether, but they sound like paraphrases doing it. 

In any case, I think the ESV translators undertranslated "monogenes" with the word only. I'm not a linguist, but isn't the word mono translated as one, single or only?

AV
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------

