JOHN 1:18 – Different Translations
Wm Barclay’s Study Bible 1975 edition – No one has ever seen God. It is the unique one, he who is God, he who is in the bosom of the Father, who has told us all about God. (1)
NIV 1987 edition – No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. (2)
NIV Gideon’s edition – No-one has ever seen God, but the Only Begotten Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. (3)
NIV 2008 edition – No-one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (4)
GNB 1976 edition – No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (5)
NLT 2008 edition – No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us. (6)
NWT 1984 edition – No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. [Square brackets denote a word added to the text by the publisher.] (7)
Authorized (KJV) all editions – No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. (8)
Companion Bible 1885 edition – No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared [Him]. (9)
Young’s Literal Translation 1898 edition – God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father – he did declare. (10)
What are the Differences?
The first sentence has no differences. But then there is a whole range of different ways of describing one who is, we know, Jesus Christ, with regard to His relationship with God the Father. Though some translations state it is a position that is being described, not His relationship with God. (Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 speak of being at the Father’s side, which is a position. Most modern translations do that, but Nos. 1, 4, 6 do show relationship (‘in the bosom’ or ‘heart’, of the Father).
Most modern translations also speak of Him being unique / one and only / and God. (Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7). Older translations speak of Christ’s relationship, and that He is the only-begotten Son of God.
Why are there Differences?
The differences arise from which of two ‘pedigrees’ of Greek manuscripts are being used for the translation. Modern translations go by what is called “The Critical Text” that was collated and preferred from the late 1800s onwards. All older translations go by “The Received Text” that was the only collection the Reformers and later Protestants had.
Is there a Problem?
Most people cannot see any problem. Yet, when a few questions are asked, this becomes apparent. How can God be in the bosom of God the Father (1) ? How can the one and only God be at God the Father’s side (2) ? Is it true that God only has one son, who is a singularity (4) ? If the son is “the same as God” does that suggest the Father became the son, as some groups teach (5) ? If ‘the unique One is himself God’, does that imply that the Father might not be unique and thus not the same God (6) ? Is there a Big God and a little god (7) ?
Yet with Nos. 8, 9 & 10 there is no ambiguity. The text states a clear distinction between Father and Son, whilst the integrity of their unique relationship in oneness of Being is maintained. The role of the Son was to become the One who declared the Father so that (as He said to the disciples who asked to see the Father) “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father… I am in the Father, and the Father is in me” John 14:9-10. Relationship is a feature of begetting; position is a feature of office.
Is Anything Being Undermined?
Is the relationship between the Father and Son being undermined? And is there a confusion of gods taking place in modern translations? Further, if there are two pedigrees of texts, one that says ‘Son’ and another that says ‘God’, they both cannot be right because the Greek for Son is ‘uios’ and the Greek for God is ‘theos’. Does the text say that Jesus is the Son, or does it say that Jesus is the God? We know it says that the Word [Jesus] is God in John 1:1 but if the Holy Spirit inspired John to say in verse 18 that Jesus is ‘the only-begotten Son’ and NOT ‘the one and only God’, there will be a critically important reason for that, namely, to stress the relationship of persons. The raft of questions that can be raised against modern translations that stress position makes this clear.
It is significant that both pedigrees of texts are agreed in saying the Son is the ‘mongenes’, the ‘only-begotten’, while modern translation only deal with the first half of that Greek word, ‘mono’, which means ‘one, single’. But they ignore the suffix, ‘genes’! Why? Genesis has to do with origins and the Christian creeds are adamant that the Son was begotten, not created, so that there is no originating point in time when the Son came into existence. He is the eternal Son, but modern translations focus on ‘one, single’, the singularity – only – of the Son, that He is ‘single, of its kind, only, unique’ instead of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son in the begetting.
In Hebrews 11:17 the literal Greek reads “and the monogene he [Abraham] did offer up” (i.e. Isaac) yet Abraham had begotten a prior child, Ishmael. The text does not read ‘his monogene’ but ‘the monogene’. ‘The’ monogene in Greek scripture specifically refers to the generation of a person. The article in Greek is a matter of identification, and as Isaac prefigured Christ, then, in John’s Gospel THE monogene appears and receives the promises. In John 1:18 it is the perceived relationship of God to the other person concerned that is the key point. But by stressing the singularity of the Son, in modern translations, and speaking of His position at the Father’s side instead of His intimate relationship IN the Father’s bosom, the danger arises of losing sight of the eternal begetting in the Trinity. Monogenes expresses personal relationship, not a solitude.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, reveals God as He truly is: Father and Son in perfect unity, in an eternal begetting, in one Holy Spirit. Thus – and only thus – is God, One. God is Spirit, and only by eternal generation, in one spirit, can God have a Son. That is how the three relate in the One Being of God, as they subsist in the One Being of God. That is why, whenever the Bible uses ‘monogenes’ to speak of the Son, it must be translated ‘only-begotten’ and never ‘one and only’ or ‘single of its kind, unique’, for that is to detract from the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. God is not begotten. The Son is, and uniquely so because of this eternal relationship.
CONCLUSION - Every time the Greek text has ‘monogenes’ with regard to Christ, we should read it as ‘only-begotten’ instead of the truncated ‘only’, or ‘single’ or ‘one’, as if Christ didn’t really have such an incredibly intimate relationship with the Father, as the Greek term uniquely conveys. This means that there is no justification for adding "is himself God" in any translation.