In John 1:18, is this controversial proposal a viable translation?

Question

John 1:18 according to ESV translation:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

John 1:18 according to translation proposal:

No man has ever seen God, unless the only begotten Son, who is at the Father’s side, reveals him.

The Greek seems to be saying that Son of God is the one who reveals God the Father. The Son is himself a divine god begotten by the Father and subordinate in headship to him (according to John 1:1c and Philippians 2:6).

Does this rendering make more sense given the surrounding context and historical weight, matching what the original author intended to convey in his writing?

(How this question is different from previous ones is that this proposes the rendering "only begotten god" instead of "only begotten God")

Answer 1

Some translations do translate it similar to what you have asked, such as:

American Standard Version

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .

English Revised Version

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Young's Literal Translation

God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.

These are the words of interest that are in the verse:

[but the] one and only Son, μονογενὴς (monogenēs) Adjective - Nominative Masculine Singular Strong's Greek 3439: Only, only-begotten; unique. From monos and ginomai; only-born, i.e. Sole.

[ who is Himself ] God Θεὸς (Theos) Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular Strong's Greek 2316: A deity, especially the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very.

has made [Him] known. ἐξηγήσατο (exēgēsato) Verb - Aorist Indicative Middle - 3rd Person Singular Strong's Greek 1834: To lead, show the way; met: I unfold, narrate, declare. From ek and hegeomai; to consider out, i.e. Rehearse, unfold.

---

From this, I think that "only begotten God" is viable. "Revealed" conveys a similar meaning, however, the NASB Translation uses the word in this way: explained (2), relate (2), related (1), relating (1).

The billmounce greek-dictionary defines exegeomai:

Definition: to be a leader; to detail, to set forth in language; to tell, narrate, recount, Lk. 24:35; Acts 10:8; to make known, reveal, Jn. 1:18; Acts 15:12, 14; 21:19*

A different word for revealed may have been:

(See Matthew 10:26)

will not be uncovered, ἀποκαλυφθήσεται (apokalyphthēsetai) Verb - Future Indicative Passive - 3rd Person Singular Strong's Greek 601: To uncover, bring to light, reveal. From apo and kalupto; to take off the cover, i.e. Disclose.

601 apokalýptō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2572 /kalýptō, "to cover") – properly, uncover, revealing what is hidden (veiled, obstructed), especially its inner make-up; (figuratively) to make plain (manifest), particularly what is immaterial (invisible).

(See also John 17:6)

I have revealed Ἐφανέρωσά (Ephanerōsa) Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 1st Person Singular Strong's Greek 5319: To make clear (visible, manifest), make known. From phaneros; to render apparent.

5319 phaneróō (from 5457 /phṓs, "light") – properly, illumine, make manifest (visible); (figuratively) make plain, in open view; to become apparent ("graspable").

Answer 2

This is a matter of textual variation, not difference in translation. Here is Metzger's textual commentary on the variation.

  1:18      μονογενὴς θεός {B}

With the acquisition of 66 and 75, both of which read θεός, the external support of this reading has been notably strengthened. A majority of the Committee regarded the reading μονογενὴς υἱός, which undoubtedly is easier than μονογενὴς θεός, to be the result of scribal assimilation to Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9. The anarthrous use of θεός (cf. 1:1) appears to be more primitive. There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when υἱός supplanted θεός it would certainly have been added. The shortest reading, ὁ μονογενής, while attractive because of internal considerations, is too poorly attested for acceptance as the text. Some modern commentators take μονογενής as a noun and punctuate so as to have three distinct designations of him who makes God known (μονογενής, θεός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς …). [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, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 169–170). United Bible Societies.

Answer 3

John 1:18 (ESV)

No one has ever seen God; the only God,^[a] who is at the Father's side,^[b] he has made him known.

a. Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
b. Greek in the bosom of the Father

As the ESV footnote shows, the Greek is in the bosom of the Father. A rendering of at the Father's side makes two changes to the Greek.

1. Understand the preposition εἰς to mean "by" rather than "in."
2. Understand the noun κόλπον to mean "side" rather than "bosom."

In addition, the Fourth Gospel makes extensive use of words which have dual meanings, and when the word is considered in the context of the entire Gospel, both meanings are correct.

John 1:5

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Overcome is κατέλαβεν which also means "to seize" and "to comprehend." All are correct. Given the frequency with which this literary technique occurs it should be accepted as a purposeful use of language to make a single statement which conveys more than one truth.

In the case of verse 18, ἐξηγήσατο means either to "make known" or "to lead to". John's Gospel presents Jesus as doing both.

The difficulty in translation flows directly from the Greek text which can support more than one meaning. The demand an English translator has is to "pick just one" when both the Gospel as a whole and the language of verse 1:18 support more than one correct meanings.

That the text was purposefully composed in this way is even more apparent when the entire Gospel is read and two important ideas are considered.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (1:12)
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (20:31)

The name is essential to becoming a child of God and having life.

John 1:18 mGNT:

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

John composed the phrase μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν. Anyone who examines the Greek translation of the Old Testament will recognize ὁ ὢν is the name the Lord gave Moses at the burning bush. As a result a first-century reader would recognize a meaning which is obscured by the English

No one has ever seen God, the only-begotten God, THE ONE WHO IS in the bosom of the Father makes Him known and/or leads them

A Greek speaking audience knowing the OT in the Greek language will understand the Lord who sent Moses to lead His people out of Egypt is "THE ONE WHO IS" who became flesh to lead the children of God out of sin and into the bosom of the Father. Likewise, as Moses did signs to show Pharaoh who the Lord is; John describes signs to show the world who Jesus is.

Similar to the first verse of the Gospel, the Prologue ends with a statement which can easily be understood as stating equality with God, or may be rejected as stating something else, if one believes the writer was careless with the written word.

Answer 4

I'm sorry to hear that your not satisfied with the NASB understanding of John 1:18. Notice vs16 which means the "fulness" of God as stated could not be known through any ordinary man. It must come through One who possesses the nature of God.

At vs18, the word "God" is stated first and is without the definite article. This indicates first, that the emphasis is on the word "God," and second, the nature of God should be the object of our attention. What you did get right was when you said, "the Son literally "revealed" the Father."

There is an old saying, based on Matthew 11:27 that, "Only God reveals God." "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son WILLS to reveal Him." And John 4:6, "I am the way and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

And since were in John 14 note vs9. "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father?" Of course this does not mean that Jesus Christ is God the Father.

What it does mean it the fact that the Father has no separate manifestation from the Son. The Son is the only manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is know of the Father is "REVEALED" through the Son. To see the Son is to see the "essence/nature" of the Father. Please read (John 1:1,18; John 10:30; John 12:45; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3).

Regarding John 10:30, "I and the Father We are one." It's already a given that the Father and Son are one in unity because Jesus had said that the sheep are equally safe in His hand and in His Father's hand. The power of the Son is equal to that of the Father.

Jesus asserted the essential unity of the Father and the Son in the word "one" (hen). It is a neuter number to indicate equality of essence, attributes, design, will, and work. "One" (meaning "one thing."

Jesus distinguishes the "I" from the "Father" and uses the plural verb "are" denoting "we are." Thus asserts their unity of essence or nature as identical. In verse 24 the Jews asked Jesus to tell them plainly who He was. John 10:30 is as plain as you can get. Notice Jesus does not say, "I am Christ," but "I and my Father are one"--God!

This is why at vs31,"The Jews took up stones again to stone Him." What for? It certainly wan not because Jesus and the Father were in unity. At vs33 the Jews said, For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out God." So much for you Joshua B always claiming that "Jesus is not God." If the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God, you can't know that Jesus was not claiming to be God!