Problems with Textual Criticism and John 1:18

Problems with Textual Criticism and John 1:18

Textual criticism is a highly subjective “science” at best.  In fact, textual criticism involves not only presupposed axioms that predetermine certain decisions made in determining which textual variants are most likely the original but also involves arbitrary decisions in determining the beginning axioms in the first place.  Moreover, the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts all read the only begotten son, not the only begotten God in John 1:18.  Also, the Koine Greek word for only begotten is monogenes, which can also be translated as one and only or unique and so does not refer to any literal begetting as in a beginning in time. 

Biblehub.com is a useful tool for those who cannot read Greek but it is also useful for those who read Greek.  In the following page Biblehub.com gives the readings from several editions of the Greek New Testament for John 1:18.  The critical editions all have the variant as the only begotten God:

Greek Texts

SBL Greek New Testament 2010

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Westcott and Hort 1881

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Tischendorf 8th Edition

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

See:  https://biblehub.com/texts/john/1-18.htm

Even if one cannot read Greek, it is obvious that all of these editions are virtually identical except for the one word difference plus or minus the definite article.  Is the correct reading “the only begotten son”:   ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός?  Or is it “an only begotten God”:  μονογενὴς θεὸς?  Notice that in the first example the definite article ὁ (pronounced “ho”) is given.  In the second example there is no definite article, which in Greek is the equivalent of the English indefinite article “a”.  Greek grammars call this anarthrous nouns, meaning there is no definite article.

What is particularly troubling here is that even though there are at least two earlier manuscripts that support the reading of “only begotten God” or monogenes theos, the vast majority of manuscripts from the Byzantine tradition of the second millennium [or after 1001 A.D. (C.E.)] all read “the only begotten son” or ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.  It should also be noted that in the original manuscripts there was no punctuation.  Also the earliest copies tended to be uncials or all capital letters that looked more like a series of run on sentences in English.  According to Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the discovery of 𝔓66 and 𝔓75, both from codices written in uncials on papyrus, the original reading is most likely in their opinion to be monogenes theos or only begotten God.  Most of the modern translations like the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB and other translations based on the eclectic critical editions of the Greek New Testament go with the only begotten God reading.  But this is interesting because nowhere else in the New Testament is this term used whatsoever.  The earliest manscripts on papyrus are usually from the Alexandrian text type, meaning they are from the Alexandria, Egypt area. 

The critics of the methodology of the science of textual criticism say that the Alexandrian churches were infected with a proto-gnostic heresy whereby the Alexandrians saw a problem with God being manifested in a human incarnation.  It would logically follow that they would not want to acknowledge that God the Son indwelt the human nature of Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:19; 2:9), so they changed the reading from the only begotten Son to an only begotten God.  This reading would in fact indicate instead a demigod who was on a lower level than Almighty God.  Modern Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret John 1:1 this way because they believe Jehovah is God and Jesus is only an angelic being or demigod.  Oneness Pentecostals base their view that Jesus is the son of man on John 1:18 and the only begotten son reading but insist that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh and that Jesus only pre-existed as an idea in God’s mind, not as a distinct second Person of the Trinity.  Oneness Pentecostals do not accept that Jesus is both God and man but say instead that Jesus is only a manifestation of God the Father, not actually God incarnate.  Needless to say, the Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witnesses both reject the Trinity and the orthodox view of the incarnation.

The orthodox view is that Jesus is a hypostatic union of two natures, human and divine and that each of the natures remains distinct from the other without being confused or mixed.  Yet the two natures cannot be separated because that would result in Nestorianism.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark resolved the apparent problem by insisting that Jesus was a genuine human person with a human soul who was also perfectly united with the second Person of the Trinity, the Logos.  In this way both the human nature and the divine nature are preserved and each is unchanged by the union of the two persons in Jesus Christ.  [Clark defines a person as a complex of propositions that he or she thinks].

The problem I have with Metzger’s remarks in his textual commentary is that the reading of only begotten God is based on only two manuscripts and a few of the commentaries written by the early church fathers.  Westcott and Hort popularized textual criticism and their axioms and it was Westcott and Hort who originated the opinion that the earliest reading of John 1:18 said monogenes theos, not ho monogenes huios.  The reasoning behind Metzger’s opinion is that the only begotten son is “easier” than the reading of only begotten God.  That’s a biased opinion based on the assumption that the earliest and roughest or less sensible reading must be correct.  Could it be that God would inspire the easier reading instead?  It is also possible that earlier manuscript copies contained the Majority Text reading but were lost in the interim period.  Basically textual criticism is a changing science and opinions differ.  The inspired word of God does not change, however, because God does not change.  It is this lack of consistency in the manuscript evidences of the New Testament that has led one Evangelical, Dr. Bart Erhman, a text critic at Princeton Seminary in New Jersey, to conclude that we do not know what the original autographs contained whatsoever.  It seems to me that it is better to say that the apographs preserve the inspired word of God and to go with the majority of the manuscripts which testify to a single reading with only minor variations.  The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark was apparently of this opinion when he said:

“You mention textual criticism. I hope my treatise on the subject will be published. Hill’s book is not too good, mainly because he goes into other matters about which he knows very little. But Pickering is excellent! The New King James has followed Hodges + Farstadt’s Majority Text. This is not the Textus Receptus because the T.R. was based on less than 20 MSS. This text is based on maybe a hundred Byzantine MSS. Its critical apparatus is hard to decipher, but with the information in the Aland-Metzger notes, there is sufficient information.”

Doug Douma, GHC Review 41:  Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism.

The committee, according to Metzger, almost unanimously decided that monogenes theos is the correct and original reading and thus rated the reading with a B out of the four possibilities of A, B, C, or D.  Interestingly, however, the lone dissenter who disagreed was Allen Wikgren.  His note in brackets at the end of Metzger’s comments read:

[It is doubtful that the author would have written μονογενὴς θεός, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition (Υς/Θς). At least a {D} decision would be preferable. A.W.]

Metzger, Bruce Manning, United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Print.

As you probably know, I prefer the New King James Version because it follows the Majority Text, which reads "the only begotten son" in John 1:18.  Some have stated that Dr. Gordon H. Clark was not King James Only and I would agree with that assessment because Clark read the critical editions of the Greek New Testament as well as modern translations based on it.  Clark also said, however, that there was nothing wrong with using the KJV translation even though I think he leaned toward using the NKJV.  Unfortunately, James R. White has labeled anyone who disagrees with the eclectic Greek New Testament as King James Only.  I utilize many different translations in my study of the Bible because there is no perfect translation of the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament.  However, textual issues are bit different from translation issues.  I disagree with the dynamic equivalency approach to translation because I think the reader should be able to see the difficulties of translation for himself or herself without having the issues smoothed over with what can only be called a paraphrase of the original language idioms into simple English.  It is odd that those who promote the critical editions of the Greek New Testament because they are more difficult also want to simplify the English translations without giving readers the opportunity to decide for themselves what the original language idioms really mean.

But I digress.  Another issue is whether or not 1 John 5:7 is actually in the original autographs.  I will write on this issue in a future post.