A Text Critic’s Comments on John 1:3-4 & 18
I cite the statements of Philip W. Comfort, a renowned New Testament textual scholar, on the variant readings and/or punctuation of John 1:3-4 and 18. Comfort’s commentary is taken from New Testament Text and Translation Commentary – Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations, published by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Il, in 2008. All emphasis will be mine.
WH NU 3panta di autou egeneto kai choris autou egeneto oude en. ho gegonen 4en auto zoe en
“3All things came into being through, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4in him was life”
P75c C D L (Ws omit en) 050*
RSVmg NRSV ESVmg NEB REBmg NJB NAB NLT HCSBmg NETmg
variant 1/TR 3panta di autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude en ho gegonen. 4en auto zoe en
“3All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being that has come into being. 4In him was life”
aleph theta upsilon 050* 33 Maj
KJV NKJV RSV NRSVmg ESV NASB NIV TNTV NEBmg REB NJBmg NLTmg HCSB NET
variant 2 3panta di autou egeneto kai choris autou egeneto ouden ho gegonen 4auto zoe en
“3All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4by him was life”
P66
none
The last phrase of 1:3 (ho gegonen—”that which has come into being”) has been connected with 1:3 or with 1:4 by various ancient scribes and modern translators by means of punctuation. The earliest manuscripts (P66 P75 X * A B) do not have any punctuation in these verses. If John had read the passage out loud, the hearers would have known how he punctuated the text. Lacking his notations, all readers—from ancient to modern—have had to guess his intentions. Of course, it must also be said that, since the prologue is poetic, it is possible that John intended ambiguity, thus, it is not a question of which reading is correct. The earliest scribes, by not adding punctuation, left the text ambiguous; ancient readers could read it both ways and still make sense of it. A corrector of P75 (or simply a later reader) punctuated 1:3-4 as in WH NU.
The majority of the early church fathers interpreted 1:3-4 according to the phrasing in WH NU. The passage was taken to mean that all created things were “life” by virtue of being in him. The statement is intended to affirm that the Word not only created the universe, he presently sustains it—all things are alive with his life (see Col 1:17; Heb 1:2-3). This idea is rendered quite well in the NLT: “He gives life to everything he created.” The next phrase in the prologue, “and the life was the light of men,” was then understood by several early interpreters to mean that the Word enlightened people—even prior to his incarnation. This was the view of Justin Martyr and the Christian philosophers of Alexandria.
However, the expression “what has come into being in him was life” could also be understood to mean that life had “come into being” in the Word (i.e., “that which came into being in him was life” or “life is that which came into being in him”—as in Ws). This is a more difficult concept than the first interpretation discussed above. Certain fourth-century Arians took this to mean that the Son had undergone change and therefore was not truly equal with the Father (Brown 1966, 6). Thereafter, many church fathers supported the reading as it is in the first variant. This reading emphasizes the Word’s impartation of life to men concurrent with the giving of light to men. In short, it speaks of Jesus’ ministry on earth as the life-giver and light-giver. Even to the present day, many interpreters have followed this interpretation (see the discussion in Schnackenburg 1982,1:239-240), while other scholars (e.g., Westcott 1881, 28-31; Brown 1966, 6-7; Beasley-Murray 1987, 2) support the WH NU reading.
One of the difficulties of the WH NU reading pertains to the function of the preposition en in the expression ho gegonen en auto zoe estin for it is difficult to understand how creation came to be life in him (especially when “in him” is read as a locative). It appears that the scribe of P66 confronted this problem and dealt with it by omitting the preposition (the second variant). Of course, it could be argued that the omission of en was accidental, due to homoeoteleuton: gegonen en. However, since this was left uncorrected, it is just as likely that it was a purposeful omission intended to rectify this exegetical problem. With en gone, the phrase is clearly dative, which therefore points to agency: “What has come into being by him was life [or, was made life), and the life was the light of men.”
It should also be noted that several witnesses (Aleph D it MSSaccording to Origen) read estin (“is”) in the expression, en auto zoe estin (“in him is life”), against the testimony of P66 P75 A B C L, which read en (“was”). The variant with the present tense, although a true statement and one that John himself would espouse (see 11:25; 14:6), appears to be the work of scribes wanting to affirm the “presentness” of life in the Word and thereby obviate any thought that life was no longer in him. Or perhaps scribes made the change to the present tense in an attempt to clarify the difficult statement, “that which was created in him was life.” But John chose to use the imperfect en throughout the first four verses of the prologue to indicate the past and continual presence of the Word.
In the final analysis, we need to see that John’s prologue is poetry, which allows for polyvalence. As such, John may have wanted the phrase to connect with both 1:3 and 1:4, showing that the Word is life-giver in all creation, as well as life-giver in regeneration. (Pp. 252-253)
John 1:18
WH NU monogenes theos
“an only one, God” (or, “only begotten God”)
P66 Aleph* B C* L syrhmg,p
NKJVmg RSVmg (NRSV) ESV NASB NIV (TNIV) NEBmg NJBmg NAB (NLT) HCSBmg NET
Variant 1 ho monogenes theos
“the only begotten God”
P75 Aleph1 33 copbo
NRSVmg NASBmg NIVmg NETmg
variant 2/TR ho monogenes theos
“the only begotten Son”
A C3 (Ws) Theta Upsilon f1,13 Maj syrc
KJV NKJV RSV ESVmg NASBmg NIVmg TNIVmg (NEB REB) NJB NLTmg HCSB NETmg
The two early papyri (P66 and P75), the earliest uncials (Aleph B C*), and some early versions (Coptic and Syriac) support the word theos, and many church fathers (Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Serapion, Basil, Didymus, Gregory-Nyssa, Epiphanius, Valentiniansaccording to Irenaeus, Clement) knew of this reading. The second variant with hyios was known by many early church fathers (Irenaeus, Clement, Hippolytus, Alexander, Eusebius, Eastathius, Serapion, Julian, Basil, and Gregory-Nazianzus) and was translated in some early versions (Old Latin and Syriac). However, the discovery of two second-century papyri, P66 and P75, both of which read theos (“God”), tipped the balance. It is now clear that monogenes theos is the earlier—and preferred—reading. This was changed as early as the beginning of the third century, if not earlier, to the more ordinary reading, monogenes hyios (“the only begotten Son”).
Even without the knowledge of the two papyri (which were discovered in the 1950s and 1960s), Hort (1876,1-26) argued extensively and convincingly for the reading monogenes theos. He argued that gnostics (such as Valentinus, the first known writer to have used this phrase) did not invent this phrase; rather, they simply quoted it. And he argued that this phrase is very suitable for the closing verse of the prologue, in which Christ has been called “God” (theos-in 1:1) and “an only one” (|monogenes-in 1:14), and finally, “an only one, God” (monogenes theos), which combines the two titles into one. This masterfully concludes the prologue, for 1:18 then mirrors 1:1. Both verses have the following three corresponding phrases: (1) Christ as God’s expression (the “Word” and “he has explained him”), (2) Christ as God (“the Word was God” and “an only one, God”), and (3) Christ as the one close to God (“the Word was face to face with God” [WILLIAMS] and “in the bosom of the Father”).
After the discovery of the papyri, English translators started to adopt the reading “God.” However, the entire phrase, monogenes theos, is very difficult to render, so translators have not known whether to treat monogenes as an adjective alone or as an adjective functioning as a substantive. Should this be rendered, “an only begotten God” or “an only one, God” or “unique God’? Since the term monogenes more likely speaks of “uniqueness” than “only one born,” it probably functions as a substantive indicating Jesus’ unique identity as being both God and near to God, as a Son in the bosom of his Father. This is made somewhat clear in NET: “the only one, himself God” or NIVmg—”God the Only Begotten.” But note that even these translations add an article, and thereby follow the first variant. A literal translation as found in the NASB (“the only begotten God”) could lead readers to think mistakenly that the Son is a begotten God. Other translations offer conflated readings, which include both “God” and “Son”—as in the first edition of the NIV and the NRSV which both read “God the only Son,” and the TNIV which reads, “the one and only Son, who is himself God.” Of course, these translations are rendering monogenes as “only Son,” but this rendering ends up reflecting the inferior textual variant. Several modern translations still follow the third reading: “the only Son” (NJB HCSB) and “God’s only Son” (REB). To accurately reflect what John wrote, an English translation could read, “No one has see God at any time; a very unique one, who is God and who is in the bosom of the Father, has explained him.”
What is important to note in this passage is that Jesus’ deity is affirmed in the same manner as it is in 1:1. He is unique in that he is God and with God, his Father. Jesus’ deity is a major theme in John’s gospel, affirmed in 1:1; 5:17-18; 8:58; 10:30-36; 14:9-11; and 20:28. To these verses should be added 1:18, a profound conclusion to the prologue and a strong affirmation of Jesus’ divine uniqueness. He alone who is God and near to God the Father is qualified to explain God to humanity (see Comfort 2005, 336). (Pp. 255-256)
Further Reading
Early Church & the Punctuation of John 1:3-4
Tertullian & the Punctuation of John 1:3-4
Novatian & the Punctuation of John 1:3-4
Origen & the Punctuation of John 1:3-4
The Meaning of Monogenes: Is Jesus God’s “Only Begotten” Son?
John 1:18 – What Does Μονογενὴς Mean?
ONE AND ONLY OR ONLY BEGOTTEN?
Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten’
The Only Begotten Son: A Defense of the King James’ Rendering of John 1:18
Monogenes Theos: A Gnostic Corruption?
The Gnostic & Arian Corruption of John 1:18