Jn 1:18 (KJV) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
which follows the Byzantine Majority Text: "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο"
However, re Jn 1:18, it is well known that "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" supplants "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός" in the early Bible Codices: א B C L, the Version of Lower Egypt and Peshito Syriac, in the Valentinian Gnostics (circa 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Didymus, and some others, and is favored by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Revisers (margin).
Whereas "μονογενής υιός" occurs in the later versions: A (Byzantine Gospels), X, etc., Latin Versions, Old Syriac, Eusebius, Athanasius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom and others, and is favored by Lachmann (text), Tischendorf, Alford, McClellan, Scrivener, Revisers (text).
Most scholars now seem to prefer "μονογενής υιός" (KJV - Byzantine) as the safest rendition, even though the authoritative early uncials suggest "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" should be the preferred rendition.
The question is this: does a translation of "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" (no article) exist that will stand the test of orthodoxy and allow the early uncial codices to retain their pre-eminence over the later Byzantine reading, which many accept is a recension (especially Hort - see "Two Dissertations")?
Mooted translations that are unacceptable are any and all polytheistic translations that appear to set up another God to rival the Father, e,.g. such as "only begotten God."
The solution may however be straightforward, given this very important point: μονογενὴς without υιός can and must stand on its own as a substantive in its own right. Where υιός is not appended to μονογενὴς in other places in the gospels, υιός is implied, for μονογενὴς can only mean "the only son" (it cannot mean anything else - - μονογενὴς always entails a filial relation).
If μονογενὴς is construed as a substantive, Θεὸς becomes predicate, or appositional. Here Θεὸς translates to "divine" although theologians often prefer "God," also meaning the properties of God in the predicate position (cf. Jn 1:1c). In fact Jn 1:1c can be translated "The Word was divine" or "The Word was God" - they are almost equivalent phrases in the predicate position, although the latter is preferable for laying an emphasis of the authority of the Word. (The NET bible uses "fully God" - although this is not a good translation because "God" is not an adjective and there is no need to use "fully" as agency of the Father is inferred by the context of Jn 1:1b.)
In the Greek Θεὸς can be a common noun, and the article is not implied when used as predicate. Here the common noun Θεὸς is subject to the given context, which in Jn 1:18 is clearly its association with the Father (who is also titled "o Θεὸς"). When in the predicate position,Θεὸς infers "the properties or essence of God (i.e. of the Father)".
Thus I posit that the following translations can be used as legitimate English translations for the "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" rendition:
1. "No one has ever seen God, but the only divinely begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."
2. "No one has ever seen God, but the unique Son, begotten of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."
[NB: I am indebted to this article (not free from this source) for inspiring me.]
which follows the Byzantine Majority Text: "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο"
However, re Jn 1:18, it is well known that "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" supplants "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός" in the early Bible Codices: א B C L, the Version of Lower Egypt and Peshito Syriac, in the Valentinian Gnostics (circa 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Didymus, and some others, and is favored by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Revisers (margin).
Whereas "μονογενής υιός" occurs in the later versions: A (Byzantine Gospels), X, etc., Latin Versions, Old Syriac, Eusebius, Athanasius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom and others, and is favored by Lachmann (text), Tischendorf, Alford, McClellan, Scrivener, Revisers (text).
Most scholars now seem to prefer "μονογενής υιός" (KJV - Byzantine) as the safest rendition, even though the authoritative early uncials suggest "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" should be the preferred rendition.
The question is this: does a translation of "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" (no article) exist that will stand the test of orthodoxy and allow the early uncial codices to retain their pre-eminence over the later Byzantine reading, which many accept is a recension (especially Hort - see "Two Dissertations")?
Mooted translations that are unacceptable are any and all polytheistic translations that appear to set up another God to rival the Father, e,.g. such as "only begotten God."
The solution may however be straightforward, given this very important point: μονογενὴς without υιός can and must stand on its own as a substantive in its own right. Where υιός is not appended to μονογενὴς in other places in the gospels, υιός is implied, for μονογενὴς can only mean "the only son" (it cannot mean anything else - - μονογενὴς always entails a filial relation).
If μονογενὴς is construed as a substantive, Θεὸς becomes predicate, or appositional. Here Θεὸς translates to "divine" although theologians often prefer "God," also meaning the properties of God in the predicate position (cf. Jn 1:1c). In fact Jn 1:1c can be translated "The Word was divine" or "The Word was God" - they are almost equivalent phrases in the predicate position, although the latter is preferable for laying an emphasis of the authority of the Word. (The NET bible uses "fully God" - although this is not a good translation because "God" is not an adjective and there is no need to use "fully" as agency of the Father is inferred by the context of Jn 1:1b.)
In the Greek Θεὸς can be a common noun, and the article is not implied when used as predicate. Here the common noun Θεὸς is subject to the given context, which in Jn 1:18 is clearly its association with the Father (who is also titled "o Θεὸς"). When in the predicate position,Θεὸς infers "the properties or essence of God (i.e. of the Father)".
Thus I posit that the following translations can be used as legitimate English translations for the "μονογενὴς Θεὸς" rendition:
1. "No one has ever seen God, but the only divinely begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."
2. "No one has ever seen God, but the unique Son, begotten of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."
[NB: I am indebted to this article (not free from this source) for inspiring me.]
Last edited: