Examining the Textual Variant in John 1:18

A Personal Encounter with a Variant

I was sitting in the front room of a fellow church member’s home, facing two young LDS missionaries. I was no older than them, but I had recently begun studying Mormonism, and so I had been asked to come over and talk to them. I grabbed an interlinear Greek volume I had recently purchased since I was only in my first semester of the language at the time. I wanted to cover one of the texts with them: the Prologue of the Gospel of John, 1:1-18.

As we got to the 18^th verse, I wanted to talk to them about how the English translation I was then using regularly, the New American Standard Bible, rendered it, “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”^[1] I excitedly opened up the large interlinear volume and was about to point to the text when my eyes fell upon the words “Only begotten Son” and the corresponding phrase μονογενὴς υἱός in the text. I was thrown off track and had to move on to the next topic. A textual variant at a key passage had caught me unaware.

Early Steps into Textual Criticism

Fast forward several years. I have now taken many years of Greek and have spent many hours in the field of textual criticism. I now realize that the interlinear I had grabbed as a young and zealous apologist was based upon the Textus Receptus, the Greek text from which the King James was derived,^[2] and not the modern so-called “eclectic” texts used today (the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts). I have now encountered the King James Only movement and begun dealing with their argumentation. This leads me back to John 1:18 and the reading μονογενὴς θεὸς, which differs from the King James. This is when I run into arguments such as this one from KJVO advocate Jay P. Green:

[Codex Sinaiticus] in John 1:18 refers to Christ as the “only-begotten God.” How can anyone claim that one that is begotten is at the same time essential God, equal in every respect to God the Father, and to God the Holy Spirit? This makes Christ to be a created Being. And it is a Gnostic twist given to the Bible by the heretic Valentinus and his followers, who did not regard the Word and Christ as one and the same; who thought of the Son of God and the Father as being one and the same Person. Therefore, they determined to do away with “the only-begotten Son” in order to accommodate their religion.^[3]

Beyond dealing with the King James Only movement, I also moved into defending the text of the New Testament against atheists, skeptics, Mormons, etc. At the foundation of all of these apologetic tasks was the need to understand the history of the transmission of the text over time and how God’s providence was involved.

The Variant in John 1:18

The Prologue of John (1:1-18) is one of the most critical Christological texts in the New Testament and has been a battleground from the second century onward. Most Christians are aware that when the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to your door, they are ready to go to the mat on John 1:1 (which is why I suggest you don’t go there, to be honest). However, the impact of verse 18 is not nearly as well known.

A glance at the Prologue reveals that 1:18 is a “bookend” to John 1:1. That is, John provides a literary technique whereby the intervening material is “bookended” so that verses 1 and 18 give a repetition of the same concepts and hence produce an understandable pericope. John 1:1 speaks of the Logos, His eternality, and His relationship to the Father. In the same way, verse 18 repeats these concepts in other terms, speaking of the Son’s intimate relationship to the Father as the one who makes Him (the Father) known. Hence, identifying the Son as deity in verse 18 would parallel the same concept in 1:1.

But it is just here that we encounter the issue of the textual variant in verse 18. While John 1:1 is straightforward and not challenging on the textual level, John 1:18 contains a textual variant that directly impacts our reading and understanding. This fact is noted in all modern English translations. For example, the ESV has a textual footnote that reads, “Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son.” The NRSV has, “Other ancient authorities read It is an only Son, God, or It is the only Son.” The 1984 NIV had “Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son.” Most believers find these notes not only cryptic, but many have expressed to me a dislike for them over the years because they seem to indicate uncertainty about the text without providing enough information for the reader to make any personal decision about the issue. These notes are essential and can be a starting place for a more in-depth study of the text. Christians need to be open and forthright about the text of Scripture and how it has been transmitted to us over the centuries.

The Textual Variant

Without getting too deeply into minutiae, the primary issue in John 1:18 is whether John used the word “God” or the word “Son” after the Greek phrase “the only begotten.” There is also a variant regarding the use of the article, but for our purposes, we will overlook that issue. In its simplest form, the possibilities are:

Reading A: μονογενὴς υἱός (only-begotten Son).

Reading B: μονογενὴς θεὸς (only-begotten God).

Before diving into the details, we should briefly address the matter of translation. The older English rendering, “only-begotten Son,” is common and appears elsewhere in John. It is exceptionally well known in John 3:16. But how do you render the Greek term μονογενὴς when it is followed by “God”? Most modern scholars have considered it “the one and only” or “unique.” There has been a minor push-back against this over the past ten years, but I am not convinced by the arguments, primarily because this is such a unique context and a unique use of the term. The ESV’s “the only God” captures at least some of the meaning, but the NRSV’s “God the only Son” attempts to maintain the “sonship” element of μονογενὴς while at the same time expressing the deity inherent in θεὸς. The 1984 NIV’s “God the One and Only” is another way of attempting to capture everything that is going on in the text as it stands, but that evidently did not satisfy the translation committee, for the current NIV now has, “but the one and only Son, who is himself God.”

We must leave the translational issues aside and focus on the underlying Greek text. When we speak of a textual variant, we are speaking of a difference in the handwritten manuscripts by which the New Testament was transmitted to us over 1,500 years until, at least, the invention of the printing press and the first publication of the Greek New Testament (usually credited to Desiderius Erasmus in 1516).^[4] Any differences in spelling, word order, the absence or presence of words, phrases, sentences, or even entire verses are all “textual variants.” All ancient texts that were handwritten contain such variants. No one ever made a perfect copy of a pre-existing written text until 1949, when the photocopier was invented. All ancient authors speak of such textual variants and the problems they could cause.

Understanding the History of the Text’s Transmission

The modern practice of textual criticism involves identifying the manuscripts that read one way or the other, comparing them, weighing them, examining the internal probabilities, and coming to a conclusion. Modern Greek New Testaments provide astonishing information regarding variants and manuscripts, even in their simplest printed editions. The Nestle-Aland Greek text, for example, is an ingeniously designed yet amazingly compact library of information that did not exist in any one place for the vast majority of church history. Today, with the advent of computer technology, a person can carry the equivalent, textually speaking, of all the libraries of Europe at the time of the Reformation on their smartphone or tablet.

The study also examines how the early Christian writers recorded these texts, though that is a secondary consideration for a few reasons. One is that they were not always directly copying from a text but might have been quoting from memory, and hence, they will often cite a text in more than one way in their writings. Further, their writings had to be copied and passed down, and that copying process was also subject to variation.

What is striking about John 1:18 is that the earliest texts we possess of John 1:18 all read the same: μονογενὴς θεὸς. Yet, the vast majority of all texts say μονογενὴς υἱός. So here we have the earliest attested reading standing against most of the rest of the tradition. We will consider why this might be below.

Up until the early 20^th century, the reading “God” in John 1:18 was primarily known from the two remarkable uncial manuscripts designated today as B (Codex Vaticanus) and ℵ (Codex Sinaiticus). Both are dated somewhere between AD 325 and 350. For many years, they dominated the New Testament textual landscape as the oldest examples of the New Testament we possess. There were other sources with the reading, as we will see, but the combined weight of ℵ and B pushed the variant into the forefront of scholarly discussion.

Papyri Discoveries and the Rise of Modern Textual Criticism

Beginning in the 20^th century, the discovery of the papyri revolutionized the landscape of New Testament textual criticism. It wasn’t that the papyri introduced new or unusual readings—that was rare. What caused such a stir was that they pushed the date of existing readings back, in some cases, by nearly two centuries.

The two earliest manuscripts we have containing the first chapter of John are papyri. Both are dated between 175 and 200 AD.^[5] They are 𝔓75 and 𝔓66. Each has a fascinating style and history, but for the sake of space, we’ll focus on 𝔓75.

𝔓75 is an ancient papyrus manuscript containing most of the gospels of Luke and John. It is probably the most important papyrus manuscript that appeared over a century ago. Upon its publication and dissemination amongst scholars, no small amount of discussion arose as it provided a very early witness to some key and, yes, controversial readings in the Greek New Testament. Most Bible readers’ exposure to such material is limited to the small font notations in the margin or at the bottom of the page that say such cryptic things as “some manuscripts say” or “better manuscripts give this reading.” Most ignore such notes and often dislike their presence; for too many, they indicate a lack of precision or exactness in the original readings of the Bible. This ignorance of the history of the Bible and how God preserved it for His people is a significant weakness in the modern evangelical church.

𝔓75 is one of the famous Bodmer Papyri, so called because it, along with others, was obtained by Martin Bodmer, a Swiss antiquities collector. 𝔓75, in particular, was unearthed in the early 1950s, not far from the location of the famous Nag Hammadi library that had been discovered several years earlier. Its contents were published for the world to see in the early 1960s. Today, one can access full-color, high-resolution images of most ancient papyri and later vellum manuscripts, even though it is clear by comparing earlier images that the manuscripts are fading over time. So, the initial photos made available were not nearly as clear (or as widespread) as we have today. Most were in black and white photography.

As soon as 𝔓75 became available for scholarly review, a significant study was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature.^[6] The study focused upon the large coherence in the readings of 𝔓75 and one of the two great uncials already mentioned, Codex B, a.k.a. Vaticanus. Again, remember that assigning a date to an ancient document is challenging. The “standard” or accepted dating for Vaticanus is between 325 and 350 AD, and the early range assigned to 𝔓75 was 175 to 225 AD. Next, “coherence” wasn’t the central term in textual studies back then that it is today, and we certainly cannot get into the modern practice of “Coherence-Based Genealogical Method” that is now driving new developments in NT textual criticism.^[7] However, the focus of the study demonstrated that 𝔓75 and B matched in containing unique readings at key variants. Assuming 𝔓75 was written around 200 and B around 350, the study showed that while B was not copied from 𝔓75 directly, they shared an even earlier ancestor, pushing that manuscript into the middle or even earlier part of the second century.^[8] This was one of the most critical observations from the discovery of 𝔓75, and it confirmed the importance of the great uncial texts such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Evaluating the Variant

Consider three aspects of this particular variant in John 1:18. First, what is the best reading? Secondly, how should it be translated? And thirdly, how much weight can we put upon the reading, given that it is, in fact, a variant?

As noted above, the earliest manuscripts we have that contain John 1:18 all contain the word “God” in the phrase μονογενὴς θεὸς. These would be 𝔓66, 𝔓75, ℵ and B. But, of course, these are not the only witnesses to this reading. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (Codex C), a 5th-century manuscript, also reads “God,” though a later hand altered it to the majority reading, “Son.” From the 8th century, Codex L also preserves the reading “God.” Next, when we look at early translations into other languages, we find evidence of the antiquity of the reading “God.” Some Syriac, Coptic and Georgian manuscripts give this reading. And it is well known in the writings of the early fathers. However, the reader will find it interesting that some of the early writers are split amongst the variant readings; in their extant writings, they give different renderings of the text. So, Cyril of Alexandria^[9] cites the text four times. Once he cites it as μονογενὴς θεὸς without the article, twice with the article, and once as μονογενὴς υἱός (Son)! This shows the pitfalls inherent in the patristic witness to the text of the New Testament. In any case, broadly speaking of the variant “God” at this point, we can cite Origen, Didymus, Cyril, Clement, Eusebius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius and Serapion.

The earliest witness for “Son” is found in Codex Alexandrinus (A), generally dated to the fifth century. However, this is by far the majority reading in the New Testament manuscript tradition. It is the reading of a number of uncial Greek texts, many minuscules, and the majority of the early writers and translations. Most interestingly, Athanasius, the great defender of the deity of Christ, consistently read μονογενὴς υἱός in his writings. Gregory of Nyssa consistently used μονογενὴς θεὸς while Basil split between the readings!

However, a brief note should be offered here. Irenaeus (late 2^nd century) would be considered earlier than B and contemporaneous with 𝔓75. The Latin text of Irenaeus’ writings reads “Son” at least once but also has a conflated reading that could be rendered “the only begotten Son of God.” In any case, why wouldn’t at least one reference be considered as important as 𝔓75? Because the fathers’ writings come to us in a different way than the NT manuscripts. They were not copied nearly as widely, as often, or, importantly, as early as the NT manuscripts. So, while Irenaeus lived in the late second century, and later, Latin manuscripts of his works contain the “Son” reading, the origin of that reading could come many centuries later. The scribe could easily have assimilated the text to what he knew was the “right” reading of John 1:18, as it was presented to him in the manuscripts of his day.

The earliest reading is “God,” and the majority reading from the fifth century onward is “Son.” So, which is best? People often say, “Earlier is not necessarily better,” which can sometimes be true. However, in general, the more primitive the reading, the heavier the weight of that witness. As we will see below, contextual testimony can also be brought to bear on this variant.

So, if we go with μονογενὴς θεὸς as the original reading, how do we translate this? We have already noted some of the attempts in modern English translations, and at this point, whether the article is present can likewise impact translation. We could opt for the formal equivalency translation, “the only begotten God,” and then attempt to explain this awkward phrase from the pulpit in preaching, and many would opt for this path. Likewise, we could render it “the unique God” and hope that the immediate context, “who is at the Father’s side” (literally, “in the Father’s bosom”), can help clarify what is meant by “unique.” The μονογενὴς θεὸς is the unique, personal means by which the Father has been revealed to mankind. If we wish to emphasize the meaning of monogenes, we can use “the only Son, who is God.” This would connect well with John 1:1, where the Logos (who is obviously in view in 1:18 as well) is said to be eternal (1:1a), in personal communion with the Father (1:1b), and, as to His nature, deity (1:1c).

The fact that 1:18 is the “bookend” to 1:1 should be remembered here and can assist in choosing which phrasing will most clearly communicate the original author’s intention for the reader to recognize the connection between 1:1 and 1:18. The “unique God” clearly represents the content of 1:1b and 1:1c, for only in the incarnation of the Logos can we have one who has eternally been in relationship with the Father and yet is, as to His essential nature, true deity. This is the “uniqueness” of the Incarnate one. Our language may struggle to express such sublime truths of revelation, but we must make the effort!

The Big Question

So the question then becomes, how much weight can be put upon this text, given that it contains a disputed textual variant? It is given in textual critical and exegetical studies that it is not wise to place dogmatic authority upon a disputed text. So, if you have, for example, a disputed term, a hapax legomena, a word used only once in Scripture that may be difficult to define accurately, you should avoid making dogmatic conclusions based upon that text since further investigation might reveal that the word’s meaning was other than had been surmised. Similarly, if a textual variant changes the meaning of a text, and there are multiple possible meanings, that text should not be made a central plank in a doctrinal formulation. So, does that not mean we cannot place much weight on John 1:18?

First, we should realize that whether the reading is “God” or “Son,” the text is still to be read in light of its function in the prologue of John. Identifying the Logos as how the unseen God has been made known, revealed, and “exegeted” carries great import and meaning and is a testimony to His deity. Even reading μονογενὴς υἱός at this point is pregnant with meaning, just as it is elsewhere in John. So, in reality, the question is whether we should list John 1:18 as one of those places where the term “God” is used for the Son. If we read μονογενὴς υἱός, then it is not; if we read μονογενὴς θεὸς, then it is.

But as has been mentioned, in defence of μονογενὴς θεὸς, the perfection of the parallel it provides between 1:1 and 1:18 is very weighty. No one has seen God at any time, but the only Son, who is God or the unique God, has revealed that unseen God because He is at the Father’s side. Of course, the “side of” is too weak a translation. The phrase speaks of personal intimacy, which is why the μονογενὴς θεὸς can reveal the Father perfectly. But is this not the same reality seen in John 1:1b, where the Logos (who becomes incarnate in 1:14) is eternally “face to face” with the Father? Just as the Logos is, as to His nature and deity, in 1:1c and 1:18, He is God, even in revealing the unseen Father.

So, when we look at 1:18’s function in John, we can see that the text does not present a binary “either/or” situation.[10] It is not as if reading “Son” means the deity of Christ is absent, and reading “God” means it is present. It is present in both but with different expressions. However, the earliest reading of John’s manuscripts provides a stronger, more consistent parallel to what we find in John 1:1.

Application

As interesting as the history of the text is, the real question arises for the minister as he prepares to preach this text to the flock. How do we handle textual variation in the pulpit? Today, a wide variety of translations are available to our people. Surely, most folks will not notice the variant in a general reading of the text, especially if they read it electronically. Even in printed Bibles, the textual notes are often small and ignored. However, the variant will be more easily recognized with translations based on different printed Greek texts. People reading a King James or New King James Bible will have “Son” at 1:18. Those reading a modern translation will have a form of “God.”

Textual critical studies are often not emphasized in modern seminary settings. Surely, most homiletics professors would encourage their students to avoid bringing up such obscure and complex topics in a sermon. At the same time, however, I have had many people relate to me over the years about how a good sermon was ruined because they could not understand the point because their translation differed significantly from the one used by the preacher!

I do not think a committed exegetical preacher can avoid this particular textual variant when preaching John’s prologue. That does not mean the entire sermon has to be devoted to the topic, but it cannot simply be ignored. Some acknowledgment needs to be made. Of course, it might be a good idea to schedule a Wednesday night study or a special topical study to address the textual history of the New Testament, especially if one is preaching through John. You not only have John 1:18, but what are you going to do when you get to John 7:53-8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery, that not only does not appear in our manuscripts until the fifth century but also appears in multiple places in John, and even in areas in Luke! And that one does not involve a single word but twelve verses! Or what if you are preaching in Luke and run into 23:34 and discover that this very famous saying of Jesus is not found in 𝔓75 and B! Preparing our folks for these realities is, I think, a vitally important part of grounding them and protecting them from the use of this kind of information to tear down their faith.

 

Footnotes

^[1] As read in the 1977 edition, this event occurred around 1983.

^[2] Technically (and rather ironically), the Textus Receptus as a printed and identifiable text came after the King James and is based upon the English translation, at least in its modern incarnation. The commonly used “Textus Receptus” today is the work of F. H. A. Scrivener, first published in 1881, with a revised edition edited by Edward Miller appearing a few years after Scrivener’s death (Scrivener died in 1891, the last edition appeared in 1894). Scrivener used the printed texts that the King James translators used, specifically those of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. When those texts differed, he used the choice represented in the King James Bible. Hence, in a true sense, the modern “TR” is a Greek text based upon an English translation.

^[3] Jay P. Green Sr., ed., Unholy Hands on the Bible, An Introduction to Textual Criticism (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), 12. The irony is that searching the generally accepted Valentinian gnostic sources does not provide an example of “only begotten God,” but “only begotten Son” appears several times.

^[4] Cardinal Ximenes had already printed his massive multi-volume work, the Complutensian Polyglot, before Erasmus but was waiting for Papal approval before publication. Erasmus took a chance to get his out first by dedicating it to Pope Leo X!

^[5] The process of dating ancient writings that do not generally have dates written in their text is far beyond our purposes here. Of course, there are controversies, and if someone wants to get published, they will often find a way to buck the consensus on something like the dating of a particular manuscript.

^[6] Calvin L. Porter, Papyrus Bodmer XV (𝔓75) and the Text of Codex Vaticanus, JBL 1962, Vol 81:363-376.

^[7] Coherence Based Genealogical Method, or CBGM, is the newest computer-based innovation in textual critical studies. Computers can process almost unlimited data points, unlike the human mind. Hence, when the readings of ancient manuscripts are collated in a computer database, the computer can determine exactly how two (or more) manuscripts compare at every word, producing a “coherence” level between the documents. This methodology produces the new Editio Critica Maior, the largest New Testament textual critical project ever undertaken. For an introduction to CBGM, see Peter Gurry & Tommy Wasserman’s A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (2017).

^[8] As with all such studies, others have sought to establish a differing viewpoint. Brent Nongbri’s 2016 article, Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, published in JBL, seeks to argue 𝔓75 is a fourth-century product. However, this view has not become widely accepted.

^[9] I am here to give the information as it is contained in the UBS 5th Edition apparatus.

^[10] Similarly, in 1 Timothy 3:16, though it seems like there is a binary difference between reading “God was manifest” or “He who was manifest,” the context again requires us to recognize that this early creedal statement carries a very high view of Christ even in the less specific reading of “He who.”