The One Thing John Didn't Write

The ESV Makes It Worse

Dear Friends,

Step into my study! Shall I fill you a pipe? Pour you a dram? Excellent!

The Square Inch has been quiet for a while. Late last week we were gearing up to leave town for Arizona, only to have nature intervene. We got positively pummeled by a winter storm, and had to make a decision about whether to attempt the drive. There were Interstate closures all over the place and we decided the wise thing would be not to attempt it. White-knuckle driving all the way to Salt Lake City and even points south is nobody’s idea of fun. So my wife and older two girls hopped a plane and made the trip; the Tucson Gem & Mineral show is an annual trek they are loathe to miss. Tara finds materials there for her artwork.

So it’s just me and my Mary Margaret (10) for a week, and she has had a doozy of a week. First, she didn’t get to go to Arizona, which she was greatly looking forward to. Then we scheduled a surgery for her today! She’s got orthodontia issues and they had to put her out cold to try to straighten things out. Poor thing looked like death warmed over this morning. But she’s bouncing back pretty quickly, and I’m trying to keep her on a good ibuprofen schedule.

All that to say, life is interrupting the regularity of this newsletter, but never fear: I’ve got quite a lot of things to share with you in the near future.

For now, let’s focus on this rather exasperating press release.

First, some background. You may remember that I once confessed my unpopular opinion that the English Standard Version is not a very good translation of the Bible. Then, I explained at length how the ESV just fumbled John 1:18 in truly mystifying fashion.

Today the ESV announced the latest changes or “improvements” to their translation. Incredibly, they made changes in Ephesians 1 and 2, but did not fix their mistranslation of eudokia—which they render “purpose” instead of “good pleasure.” This is the word that Wayne Grudem personally admitted to me they botched and assured me would be fixed. It’s going on twenty years since then, and to see that they have made minor revisions to that portion of their translation but have left eudokia completely untouched is, as I say, exasperating. Maybe the ESV translators really are convinced that eudokia means “purpose.” They are wrong, and, again, you can click on my unpopular opinion to see me make the case.

And then we also learn that the ESV is changing their translation of John 1:18, the very passage I contend they fumbled. Don’t get too excited because they have made it worse! Truly, it is inexplicable to me. I don’t want to re-write my whole essay on this, so, again, click here to read it.

Suffice it to say, they still do not translate the compound word monogenēs. They get the “mono” part, and translate it “only.” But there is no English corresponding to genēs. They will not tell us whether it means “unique” or “begotten.” But then they do the same thing I noted the Christian Standard Bible does: they try to have a textual variant both ways. Here’s their new version:

John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side…”

Look: the choice is monogenēs theos or monogenēs huios. “Only begotten God” or “Only begotten Son.” And here, in addition to ignoring genēs altogether, the ESV is falsely telling its English readers that the Greek text of John 1:18 has both theos and huios. “God the only Son.” You do not get to have both. There is a textual variant; some manuscripts have theos and some manuscripts have huios, and—importantly—no manuscript has both.

The ESV translation committee obviously studied this text intently and decided to follow the way of the CSB and make their already deficient translation now an impossible translation. I don’t know the people on this committee and I don’t question their piety or sincerity; at this point I do question their competence.

I want to be clear about something. This decision is not a very big deal theologically speaking. “Only begotten God” and “only begotten Son” can and ought to be interpreted in orthodox ways. The Son is eternally God; John has emphatically said this in the opening verse of his gospel. I happen to think the theos reading is what John wrote, as it fits perfectly as a “bookend” to the close out the prologue precisely where it began. But if somebody thinks it is “Son,” I don’t think it is a big deal at all.

But as a matter of translation it is a very big deal. These people have been going on and on for over two decades about the “word-for-word” accuracy of their translation. And “God the only Son” is a phrase non-existent in the Greek. Despite all the translational difficulties involved (and they are formidable!), it is the one phrase we can be absolutely certain the Apostle John did not write. And that is the phrase they chose. And they arrived at this “translation” after careful consideration about revising it.

I don’t really know what to say other than I may be changing my unpopular opinion. Thus far it has been that the ESV is not a very good translation, but fine if you really want to use it. I am starting to question that last bit, and might just start recommending that people affirmatively not use it—as their daily “go-to,” at least.

Here’s a bonus point. In my view, the only Bible (to my knowledge) that gets it spot-on with respect to all the formidable translational issues, is the 1995 New American Standard Bible:

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father…”

That, my friends, is what the Greek says. And I do not know why some translators feel it needs something else.

---

Thanks for joining me in my study for a pipe and dram! Come again soon.