The textual issue here is of Christological
significance. Should it read “the only
begotten Son [ho monogenes huios]”
(as in the TR) or “only God [monogenes
theos]” (as in the modern critical text)?
Compare the KJV and ESV translations:
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
ESV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,
[a] who is at the Father's side,[b] he has made him known.
ESV Footnotes:
a.
John 1:18 Or the only One, who is
God; some manuscripts the only Son
b.
John 1:18 Greek in the bosom of
the Father
External Evidence:
The TR reading [ho
monogenes huios] is supported by the following Greek mss: Codices A [Alexandrinus], C [Ephraemi, 3rd
corrector], Kappa, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, etc. It is the reading of the Majority Text. With regard to versions it is the reading of
the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Harklean Syriac.
The modern critical text reading [monogenes theos] is supported by four Greek mss: p66, Sinaiticus [original hand], Vaticanus, and
C [original hand]. Among the versions,
it is the reading of the Peshitta Syriac and a marginal reading in the Harklean
Syriac.
A variation of the modern
critical text reading includes the article:
ho monogenes theos. This reading is found in three Greek mss:
p75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, and 33.
In his Commentary,
Metzger notes that with the acquisition of p66 and p75, the modern reading is “notably
strengthened” (this and all citations below, p. 198). Even this, however, is a reminder that the TR
reading was abandoned in the nineteenth century modern text of Westcott and Hort
primarily on the basis of the twin heavyweight uncials Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus.
Internal Evidence:
Which reading fits best and makes most sense within the
context of John?
Metzger assumes that the “Son” reading “undoubtedly is easier”
than “God” here. He suggests it is “the
result of scribal assimilation to Jn 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9.”
One wonders, however, why he does not conversely consider
that the TR reading may be distinctively Johannine given the usage in John
3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9.
With regard to the alternative reading found in p75, Metzger
argues that if the article were original then there is no good reason it would have
been deleted. He suggests that the
anarthous use of theos (as in John
1:1) “appears to be more primitive.” He
suggests the article was only added as “Son” began to replace “God.”
We should note that in Metzger’s Commentary, this reading is given only a {B} reading. It also
includes a minority report from Alan Wikgren, one of the five members of the
UBS Greek NT committee. Wikgren asserts
that the modern text reading is “doubtful” He suggests it “may be a primitive,
transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition” due to confusion over nomina sacra where “Son” would have been
abbreviated as upsilon sigma and “God”
as theta sigma. Wickgren says “at least a D decision would be
preferable.”
Christological
concerns:
This text difference is important due to the use of a
Christological title for Jesus. Did the
original refer to Jesus as “the only-begotten Son” (as in the TR) or as the “only
God” (as in the modern critical text).
Note: Some have suggested that
the modern critical text could be translated as two terms [the only one, who is
God] rather than one [the only God].
One might even suggest that the modern critical text is a valuable
reading in support of the deity of Jesus, as he is explicitly described as theos (much as defenders of the TR wish
to retain the reading “God” in 1 Tim 3:16).
On the other hand, the Majority Text’s tenacious retention of
the reading “Son” rather than “God” might well argue for its originality,
perhaps indicating that the tradition was so committed to the preservation of
the original text that it was unwilling to alter it even for what might seem to
be a Christological “improvement.”
Hills, following Burgon, suggests that the modern reading
might be traced back to the heretic Valentinus who wanted to deny that the “Son”
was the “Word” (see Hills, The KJV
Defended, pp. 133-134. If this is
true the theos reading, far from
being intended to affirm the deity of Jesus, might have been intended to deny
it!
Conclusion:
The traditional reading has ancient and widespread
attestation. It was the prevailing reading
of the Majority Text. The modern reading
has ancient support, but it is limited to a handful of Alexandrian (Egyptian)
mss. Wikgren has provided a reasonable transcriptional possibility for
the modern reading due to confusion over the nomina sacra. The change might
also have its roots in Christological controversy, the terms of which are no longer clear to us. There is no
compelling reason to abandon the confessional text of John 1:18.
JTR
