Clear Thinking
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18 NASB
Explained– First, let’s deal with some punctuation. There isn’t any in the Greek text, so we find some English variation when the translators construct the sentence. In the ESV, this reads: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” Notice what’s missing and what’s been changed. Now notice the pronoun, ho (who). What does it refer to? Forget the capital letters. They are added. Forget the comma and semicolon. Should we read the pronoun as referring to the one who explains or to the only God? Try not to conflate the two when you read the various English versions. It will be hard not to because so much Trinitarian doctrine has been introduced into the NASB translation of the text. The pronoun could indicate that the one who explains God (who is not God) is in the bosom of the Father, that is, is in very close relationship with the Father, or, it could be read as the NASB suggests, i.e., that the one who explains God is, in fact, God, that is, the second person of the Trinity. Ah, and we aren’t going to resolve this issue today. But it serves as an introduction to another critical topic, that is, clarity of thought.
The basic lesson is this: the words matter! Even the tiny words like pronouns, conjunctions and prepositions. And since all punctuation is the decision of the translator, even these matter a great deal. It is simply impossible to sort out even the smallest religious ideas if we rely only on translation. And even if we use the original languages, we often discover that the words we use to explain the verses also import assumptions that are buried in the vocabulary of the reader!
There are two great schools in modern philosophical thought. The most predominant in Europe is phenomenology. From this philosophical orientation we derive in-depth studies of the human life-world. This is about the way things work, how we think, how we behave, how culture and assumptions affect our worldviews. In America and Britain, the dominant school is linguistic analysis. This orientation pays very close attention to the way words work, what they really say, what assumptions are made about what they mean, and, in particular, how clusters of vocabulary constitute “language games.” So often in our discussions and debate we actually employ words without clearly understanding what they mean or what they imply. It is the task of linguistic analysis to explicate, elaborate, and examine all of the implications of our common speech to show if what we say makes logical sense or not. For example, when I read H. G. Wells’ story about time travel, it seems to make sense because Wells conceives of time as if it were space. I can just move along it as I would move along a highway. But one of the implications of this view is that I could go into the past and kill my grandfather. Does this make sense? Is it logical? You see, we think we know what we’re talking about but when we start to unpack the idea, it falls apart.
Many theological concepts are like this. They seem to make sense because we don’t really look deeply enough into the implications in order to discover any logical mistakes. And, as linguistic analysis often demonstrates, when we do discover some logical mistake, instead of revising or abandoning our view, we ignore the evidence and go right on asserting things that are illogical because they “sound” okay.
This verse in John is but one example of how difficult it is to really examine our religious vocabulary. The concepts are so embedded in our thinking as believers that we just can’t imagine that they could be false. Think of this verse from a first century Jewish perspective. How would an orthodox Jewish believer read it? Is that different than the way you read it two thousand years later in the West?
Then ask yourself, “Why?” After all, it was written by Yochanan, right?
Topical Index: explained, punctuation, linguistic analysis, language games, John 1:18
But, Skip, to enthrone logic as somehow ‘beyond’ paradigm gets us nowhere, because enthroning logic as the golden standard for establishing truth is the epitome of the Western paradigm! Just ask anybody from the East!
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I’m not “enthroning” logic, although it would be a bit difficult to “explain” yourself without it. There isn’t any “beyond paradigm” here. Let’s call the canons of logic heuristic, i.e., useful. Every paradigm seems to use some form. Even in the East. We would hardly recognize “non-logical” communication. Take a look at the movie “Arrival” to see what I mean.
But none of this rabbit trail is my point. The point is that even the tiny changes in the text introduce bigger theological concerns, and punctuation is just one of these tiny changes. John is JEWISH, so wouldn’t we expect him to write JEWISHLY? It’s not illogical to anticipate that he will see the world as a first century Jew. The issue here is about the pronoun “who” variously interpreted according to much later theological views.
I am not trouncing logic either, as I believe our brains were designed to recognize reality and logic is ONE of the ways to do that (I like it myself, being Greek (British), too.) I too, think punctuation has been abused and know that we need to understand first century thought. It has to make sense to me, too!
But I am trying to say that sometimes perhaps logic can be abused and made to serve where wisdom or faith would serve better. Wisdom from heaven can look like foolishness on earth, and faith often does not make much ‘sense’; especially ahead of the facts, which is the definition of faith, by the way, but once faith goes down, we can look back with 20/20 and say “of course”, right? It may have made no sense to the Nazarenes that a virgin would conceive a child, but once she did, the rest of us say “of course”. It may not make a lot of sense for love to do what it does, but once it does, what are we supposed to say? “That makes no sense”?
Thanks sister for hitting the nail firmly and squarely on the head.
If Yochanan didn’t know who Yeshua was,
who did? Can we take him at his word as he
quotes Yeshua’s words as they happened?
And then we read Jn 14:9 . . .
Does that need to be explained?
Clearly he knew. But that’s not the point. The point is whether WE interpret what he knew according to his worldview in the first century as a Jew. I suggest that the ambitious pronoun in this sentence can be interpreted according to the READER’S paradigm, and that seems to be to be a mistake.
Is it granted we are limited in our understanding by the means utilized to gain it? Within the limited box of our cognitive processing we have but words, thoughts, concepts, defenitions, translations and philosophical or theological traditions(those of course are fixed in time yet also advancing with it) . It is my assertion that absolute reality and truth is generated from outside our cognitive boxes. It is generated from out side our perceptive and dimensional boxes as well . Metaphors, parables other forms as used by Yeshua inform us of the creators mind and nature. I can share from my personal querying regarding the nature of the three expressions of the diety called by some the trinity. To days word study seems to support my understanding so I take a risk in opening agin pandora’s theological box. I asked Abba to reveal to me the nature of his expressions of himself to us, how could I understand how he expresses himself. He suggested I look and consider the sun. This perhaps as an analogy or object lesson. The sun is a singular power source yet with three distinct expressions perceived by us. We see the light, we feel the heat and we know it in comes from the object defined in our intelects as the sun. It is a real thing distant from our ability to truley comprehend it. We can not readily touch it we can only feel what is emitted from it experiancing the good it’s power provides. Without verious examinations (all limited in capacity) some how we get it. Only three men that I know of have actually walked on the moon those guys know that asteroidal body in ways we never will. Perhaps that illustrates the relationships between Abba, Yeshua, and the Rauch Ha Kodesh in some limited way. Truly known by only three but perceived and experienced by all with a limited actuale knowledge. Before we start arguing I completely accept the Shema as a foundational truth that trumps trinitarianism. I wish I could be sure eactly how but mysteries yet remain regarding Yehovah and Yeshua perhaps untill we see them both face to face we may never know for sure.
C.S. Lewis says that just because we cannot see something does not mean it doesn’t exist. Like you, Mark, he points to the sun, too. If we tried to see the sun, he says, all we would do is blind our ability to see at all, but without it we would not be able to see anything else. I think truth is like the sun. We can’t ‘prove’ (see) it, but we know it is the truth because by it we can see the truth of everything else. If something comes along and causes everything else you see to be darker, so that you need it all ‘explained’ or ‘interpreted’, I would say you are probably backing up, for truth makes things easier to understand, not harder.
And by the way, physicists know perfectly well that you can only ‘see’ (measure with a capturing device) one aspect of the sun at a time, for it emits particles of matter, but also waves of light as well as heat. Three different (quantumly speaking, anyway) manifestations (functions): one sun: all three (only one of which we can see) of which are critical for life. Imagine that!
Skip,
Let me begin this comment by stating something positive, something I’d wanted to state in the recent past: At times your writing is something I’d like to emulate. It’s poetic without being flowery. In these instances, it conveys meaning in a manner that is enticing, drawing the reader in.
I wanted to state the foregoing since the overall thrust of this comment will be critical—and necessarily somewhat technical.
First I think it only fair to engage with the substantive part of your post before I become critical because of the errors in the first section. I cannot agree more that when translating all words matter. Going further, it’s the interrelationship of each word with the others that’s paramount—the second step in exegesis—for proper translation. And, certainly, one should strive to remove any sort of religio-socio preconceptions before beginning exegesis.
That said, however, the very first step is to properly identify all parts of speech, sorting them into sections, clause by clause (sentence diagramming). Then each clause must be placed where it would obviously fit, leaving the other more ambiguous ones for further analysis, to see if more than one option presents itself.
Instead of going through the laborious process laid out above, I’ll ‘cut to the chase’, making the following as succinct as possible. There are two complete sentences in John 1:18, which are best separated by a semi-colon—as each translation has done.
In the first part, the first full sentence, “God” is in the accusative (direct object) case: No one has even seen God: subject-verb-object.
In the next section “the only begotten God”/”the only God” is the subject nominative of the second sentence. The section following that is a clause beginning with the Greek article (ho) in the nominative case [translated as “who”, though better thought of here as “the one who”]; thus, this clause is in apposition with the first nominative. That is, this second nominative is in parallel with the first one. This is akin to “Gary, the man over there…”.
So, thus far we have “the only begotten God”/”the only God”, “who is in the bosom of the Father”/“who is at the Father’s side” [the NASB is more literal, as it’s an idiom]. Given that these two are in apposition, the NASB really ought to have a comma before “who”.
The last section contains the finite verb governing this entire sentence (the portion after the semicolon). This last section is comprised of a nominative demonstrative pronoun [that one/he] plus the finite verb. The demonstrative pronoun is, hence, also in apposition with the other two nominatives. Somewhat oddly, there is no direct object, but it is assumed from the accusative before the semicolon [“No one has ever seen God”], though translated “him”. More literally, this final section would be translated “he has exegeted [God/him]”. [Yes, this Greek verb exēgeomai is where we get exegete, though all English dictionaries show this word as a noun only—it is only in theological discussions that it is used as a verb.]
To recap, the format of the sentence after the semicolon is subject,subject,subject-verb-[object].
The bottom line: that which is suggested as a possible translation in this particular post is just not possible.
Oh, I gotta tell ya, when these topics come up for consideration the Bibles come off my shelves. I wish I could post a photo of what my table looks like right now.
Joh 1:18 θεονG2316 ουδειςG3762 εωρακεG3708 πωποτεG4455 οG3588 μονογενηςG3439 υιοςG5207 οG3588 ωνG1510.6 ειςG1519 τονG3588 κολπονG2859 τουG3588 πατροςG3962 εκεινοςG1565 εξηγησατοG1834
literally: Joh 1:18 [3GodG2316 1No oneG3762 2has seen]G3708 at any time;G4455 theG3588 only bornG3439 son,G5207 the oneG3588 beingG1510.6 inG1519 theG3588 bosomG2859 of theG3588 father,G3962 that oneG1565 described him.G1834
God no one has seen at any time the only born son the one being in the bosom of the father that one described him.
The above is from the Apostolic Bible Polyglot. Greene’s Interlinear reads the same in Greek and reads: Joh 1:18 God no one has seen at any time the only-begotten son who is in the bosom of the father that one explains/reveals [him].
Neither text carries any footnotes regarding variants to huios, son.
My Scofield NASB (oh, how I wish I could remove the notes!) has a note in the sidebar re the second use of “god” in this verse: “Some later mss. read Son”
Lamsa’s Aramaic Peshitta translation: No man has ever seen God; but the first-born of God, who is in the bosom of his Father, he has declared him.
2nd edition Reader’s Greek NT shows θεος with a footnote υιος (Some Mss) without referencing early or late mss
E.W Bullinger’s Companion Bible (1922) shows the KJV-1611: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” with a note that the readings vary between the two (huios and theos).
“only begotten” is a pointer or marker, this μονογενης which does not vary in the texts, but is translated variously. “Only-begotten – This term is never applied by John to any but Jesus Christ. It is applied by him five times to the Saviour, Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; 1Jo 4:9. It means literally an only child. Then, as an only child is especially dear to a parent, it means one that is especially beloved. Compare Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, Gen 22:16; Jer 6:26; Zec 12:10.” (from Albert Barnes’ (1798-1870) Notes on the Bible)
Even the ESV notes show: “some manuscripts the only Son”
Additionally, the Amplified, the Authorized, Bishops, the CJB, the Christian Standard, Darby, Geneva, HCSB, the Hebrew New Testament (Dalman-Delitzsch) 1892, the Hebrew New Testament (Salkinson-Ginsburg) 1891, the Vulgate, Webster Common Version, and Young’s Literal Translation all read son (sonne, haBen, vehaBen, Filius)
“Some” manuscripts.
As Skip said: “The basic lesson is this: the words matter!”
What are we afraid of? Thank you, Skip!
Thank you for this Leslee, very informative in regards to scholarship.
I didn’t intend to discuss the text-critical issue, but since Leslee opened the door, here goes. The reading with monogenēs God was previously known primarily in only two manuscripts (mss)—the two most complete and the two recognized earliest (and some opine, best) manuscripts. In the mid-20th century, two more mss, these on papyrus (the others are on the much more common parchment), dated even earlier, were found in the Nag Hammadi unearthings. These also contained “God” instead of “Son”. With this evidence, the Critical Text—the Greek text undergirding most newer Bible versions—was changed. In a nutshell, all four mss evidencing “God” are recognized as the four earliest. It is thought that later scribes changed “God” to “Son” to match John 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9.
But, IMO, it’s also possible a mistake was made, accounting for this difference in the four evidencing “God”. Specifically, in early mss there was a tradition to contract certain words in apparent reverence the referent. Included are the words for “God” and “Son”. The Greek would be contracted to ΘC for God and ΥC for Son. Thus, the difference is only in one letter here (the theta for the upsilon). Moreover, all four mss with “God” are from the same geographic area. So, I have no problem retaining “Son” in the text.
But that’s not all to consider. The definition for monogenēs is in dispute. Myself, I don’t think “only begotten” is correct. Monogenēs is used of Isaac in Hebrews 11:17, yet Isaac was neither Abraham’s first nor his only son.
This word is a compound. The first part mono is straightforward: only, unique. But the word for “begotten” has two “n”s (gennaō), not one as monogenēs (see the verb in John 1:13 [ek theou egennēthēsan, “born of God”], or John 3:3 [“born again/from above”], e.g.). The word genea seems to be the better root. This word is defined those exhibiting common characteristics or interests, race, kind (BDAG). While Ishmael was Abraham’s son, he was mixed; comparatively, Isaac was 100% Jew. If this line of reasoning holds true, what does this make of Yeshua’s relationship to God the Father?
Further, I would argue that John makes a point of juxtaposing ek theou egennēthēsan, “born of God” for believers in 1:13, with monogenous para patros “‘monogenēs’ from God” for the Son in 1:14.
What does all this mean for 1:18? Part of that answer lies in the meaning of the idiom “in[to] the bosom of the Father” and the fact that ‘no one sees God’ yet Yeshua not only saw God, he emulated what He saw (5:18ff) to the extent that He ‘exegeted’ Him.
Thank you, Craig. I’m curious… “all four mss with ‘God’ are from the same geographic area.” What geographic area?
Sure thing!
Alexandria, Egypt.
I should add that some of the KJV-only persuasion were taught (wrongly) that the Alexandrian mss are Gnostic corruptions, and that these mss make Jesus ‘less than God’; however, the evidence in John 1:18 runs completely contrary to that thinking.
In my tiredness and haste, I see I made an error: monogenous para patros should be “‘monogenēs’ from (the) Father” in John 1:14 (second to last paragraph @ February 12, 2019 11:02 pm).
Craig and Leslee, both of you invested a whole lot of time and effort to share what you found and know. I think both of you deserve careful time and effort to read what you shared. I, for one, gained so much from both of you, and I thank you (and Skip). Please do it again sometime (Skip, too)! I don’t think we are anywhere near through digging in this well.
You are quite correct that there is much more to mine here. See my response to Seeker’s comment below @ February 13, 2019 8:28 am.
You guys are way too smart for me. Seriously…listen to yourselves. Why couldn’t John have just written….No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son of God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him
It would make it a lot more clear. A regular person who doesn’t even know what the Trinity is or why they believe it, wouldn’t even question this verse. But isn’t each translation written with a bias?
Brother John (and Paul especially)…didn’t do us regular folk any favors.
OH, I couldn’t agree more. Thanks.
I agree! This is way above my pay grade ($0)… my brain kept telling me “404 Error PAGE NOT FOUND”
The Christian Standard Bible claiming to be the corrected translation done from the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece phrases this text differently and could be translation additions…
“No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side – he has revealed him.”
Understood is that God only reveals Himself unto those He chooses to. Other translations hint that the Son declared or defined the Father…
I understood that Yeshua came to save the lost sheep. He introduced salvation so this would imply he either reiterated the desire of God or he explained in more detail and through examples the will of God. This is found in statements relating to… I am the way, light and life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you do not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no communion with or salvation. I will reveal myself unto who God calls unto me etc.
No dogma or theology a clear explanation of a specific process which starts with God calling. Reading separately may imply a view of God in form of Man instead of man in accordance with the will or spirit of God… But yes you could also say this would be reading into scriptures and not from…
Did you notice that the “Christian” standard Bible makes the verse read as though the Trinity is assumed by the author?
The 28th (and the United Bible Society’s UBS5) is the newest Critical Text. Both have “God” in place of “Son”. Apparently the CSB opted to put both “God” and “Son” in the text because of the difficulty in deciding which one is original. But I think this is a poor solution.
From my perspective, I’m not fond of changing the idiom “in[to] the bosom of the Father” into a ‘dynamic equivalence’, as done here. I think if we keep it as literal as possible, it will provoke thought. It then would be more easily seen as some sort of idiomatic expression, also used in Luke 16:22,23 (“in[to] the bosom of Abraham”) and John 13:23 (“in[to] the bosom of Jesus”). In John 1:18 it may well be meant to be viewed as a quasi-parallel with John 1:1’s “and the Word was pros ton theon, ‘towards’ God”, thus illustrating that 1:1 and 1:18 form an inclusio, providing bookends to John’s prologue. Moreover, if we take “God” as original to 1:18, then this could be seen in quasi-parallel with the final section of John 1:1 “and the Word was God” (kai theos ēn ho logos), thus providing another inclusio.
Skip and Craig thank you for the response.
Skip I was promoting this bible as a more correct translation as the KJV as it agreed in w lot of places with what you have shared during our past few years of discussion. Then you got me reading this verse with my magnifying glass. So back to my Jewish PDF bible I go.
Craig you have provided more than a mouthful on this part of the elephant. The question I’m left with. Who declared or revealed who. John 1:1 declares God and his focus or intent. While verse 4 reveals the manifestation of the son. Or fulfilling the anointment. Sounds as if John may then be telling/reminding us in verse 18 that God reveals himself unto mankind through those he anoints?
Seeker,
It was[/is] Yeshua, the Son (aka monogenēs, aka ‘the one who is in[to] the bosom of the Father) who revealed[/s] God the Father. It is possible here that Yeshua is monogenēs theos—whatever that means exactly (see my comment @ February 12, 2019 11:02 pm)—over against monogenēs huios.
Elsewhere in John’s Gospel it is made clear that no one comes to the Father except through the Son, and no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him/her.
I didn’t mention this earlier, but it is worth noting: In “No one has seen God ever” of 1:18, God is not preceded by the Greek article. This lack of the Greek article is notable because of the brouhaha over the same thing in the last section of John 1:1 (kai theos ēn ho logos, “and the Word was God”). Comparing the two verses, “the Word” in 1:1 must have some sort of exalted ‘God-type’ relationship with God, just as ‘Word-made-flesh’ in 1:18 has some sort of ‘God-type’ relationship with God.
As regards translations, not one is perfect; I’d suggest using at least two for study purposes. If the two chosen vary so much as to make the meaning confusing in a given verse/section, look at a third.
Thank you for the further clarification Craig. Peace in Christ.