So I read Köstenberger and he is likely the source of the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too translation in the ESV and CSB. He thinks monogenes is a compound for the one begotten, then theos is the original reading, and so translates John 1:18 as,
“God, no one has ever seen;
The one-of-a-kind Son, God [in his own right]
Who lives in closest relationship with his Father—
That one has given full account of him.”
I can imagine he had a lot of say in both translating committees.
You may well be right. My suspicion has been that a few guys have written novel papers on this and the committees, always prone to bubbles and group-think and respect without broader perspective, go along with it. But I just don’t think it works. If they want to share about how there’s real precedent for this, or how it’s been misunderstood for 2,000 years, I’ll read it. But I won’t accept a ten word footnote at the bottom of the page. That seems like hubris to me.
I dove into the archives of lost and found Bibles at our church and found an NIV 1984. This was necessary because, in a fascinating twist, Zondervan won’t let it be published anymore, so Logos can’t have it on there. It was the only way to read it.
I’m really happy that they reverted the “contrary to” to “for.” Grasping the importance of that was one of my favorite illuminating moments in seminary.
I'm thankful this is virtual and I didn't expose my lungs or whole system to pipe or dram. I suppose this matters, what you wrote, but in the big scheme of things? Of the whole Bible? I didn't really understand much of it. We get the picture, don't we? I wonder what you'd think of a book I just finished (180 pages) in about a day and a half. "Identity" by John Fort. An elder in my church handed me a little book on Sunday about why we should love the Old Testament. It looks HARD. I do love the OT. The Psalms. And much more. When I can't sleep at night, I go through the books of the Bible, which I memorized while in grade school, and think of at least a verse from each book that I know and have been helped by. I want to read more, as my eyes and my time allow. I try to read The Square Inch each time. But sometimes it's way beyond me. I'll look forward to these writings that are on your mind -- and hope they can fit into mine. :)
Thank you, Bertha. Yes it matters, but it matters differently and in different degrees for different people. For you, not so much; your calling is not to be a Bible translator! I’m trying to hold those folks accountable for what they give you to read! :)
What I was trying to understand was how I would know Jesus differently or better if I grasped which one is the right translation about Him. Does that make any sense? I likely ought to read through more carefully and figure it out for myself.
I don't know that you'd know Jesus *differently,* but I think you will see something with more *clarity.* John is saying a staggering thing: this Jesus of Nazareth is GOD in the flesh; he is not just a prophet or messenger or lesser god or intermediary; he is "only begotten GOD who is in the bosom of the Father." John is emphasizing his deity. The translation "Son" lessens this emphasis to some degree. This translation "God the only Son" tries to appease two factions who disagree about the Greek variant, and those factions can't both be right. Hopefully that helps.
Sorry for the delay. Is this Q in respect to John 1:18 or just generally?
If John 1:18, they are both currently not great. Ironically, their previous versions were better! Both of them (NASB95, NIV84) accepted the reading of "theos," but have reverted back to "huios" in their later revisions. It's a respectable view, I'm just not at all convinced. They also are both currently hesitant to weigh in on "unique" or "begotten," and leave it ambiguous. NASB95 is, in my view, the best English translation of *that verse* among all of them. But I'm obviously biased and just say that because all their decisions about its ambiguities align precisely with mine! Lol
As a general matter, the NASB is good at technical accuracy, but sacrificing English readability (i.e., "Anglicized Greek"); NIV is supremely elegant English, but sacrificing some technical accuracy. It's a spectrum and depends on what you're using the translation for. As I say, every translation has its strengths and weaknesses, and the most important translation is the one you read! :)
So I read Köstenberger and he is likely the source of the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too translation in the ESV and CSB. He thinks monogenes is a compound for the one begotten, then theos is the original reading, and so translates John 1:18 as,
“God, no one has ever seen;
The one-of-a-kind Son, God [in his own right]
Who lives in closest relationship with his Father—
That one has given full account of him.”
I can imagine he had a lot of say in both translating committees.
You may well be right. My suspicion has been that a few guys have written novel papers on this and the committees, always prone to bubbles and group-think and respect without broader perspective, go along with it. But I just don’t think it works. If they want to share about how there’s real precedent for this, or how it’s been misunderstood for 2,000 years, I’ll read it. But I won’t accept a ten word footnote at the bottom of the page. That seems like hubris to me.
I dove into the archives of lost and found Bibles at our church and found an NIV 1984. This was necessary because, in a fascinating twist, Zondervan won’t let it be published anymore, so Logos can’t have it on there. It was the only way to read it.
I’m really happy that they reverted the “contrary to” to “for.” Grasping the importance of that was one of my favorite illuminating moments in seminary.
Yes, it is such a bummer that Zondervan is memory-holing the '84. It's just really good, elegant, and lovely to read. Glad you found a copy!
I'm thankful this is virtual and I didn't expose my lungs or whole system to pipe or dram. I suppose this matters, what you wrote, but in the big scheme of things? Of the whole Bible? I didn't really understand much of it. We get the picture, don't we? I wonder what you'd think of a book I just finished (180 pages) in about a day and a half. "Identity" by John Fort. An elder in my church handed me a little book on Sunday about why we should love the Old Testament. It looks HARD. I do love the OT. The Psalms. And much more. When I can't sleep at night, I go through the books of the Bible, which I memorized while in grade school, and think of at least a verse from each book that I know and have been helped by. I want to read more, as my eyes and my time allow. I try to read The Square Inch each time. But sometimes it's way beyond me. I'll look forward to these writings that are on your mind -- and hope they can fit into mine. :)
Thank you, Bertha. Yes it matters, but it matters differently and in different degrees for different people. For you, not so much; your calling is not to be a Bible translator! I’m trying to hold those folks accountable for what they give you to read! :)
What I was trying to understand was how I would know Jesus differently or better if I grasped which one is the right translation about Him. Does that make any sense? I likely ought to read through more carefully and figure it out for myself.
I don't know that you'd know Jesus *differently,* but I think you will see something with more *clarity.* John is saying a staggering thing: this Jesus of Nazareth is GOD in the flesh; he is not just a prophet or messenger or lesser god or intermediary; he is "only begotten GOD who is in the bosom of the Father." John is emphasizing his deity. The translation "Son" lessens this emphasis to some degree. This translation "God the only Son" tries to appease two factions who disagree about the Greek variant, and those factions can't both be right. Hopefully that helps.
NASB or old NIV? Which is better?
Sorry for the delay. Is this Q in respect to John 1:18 or just generally?
If John 1:18, they are both currently not great. Ironically, their previous versions were better! Both of them (NASB95, NIV84) accepted the reading of "theos," but have reverted back to "huios" in their later revisions. It's a respectable view, I'm just not at all convinced. They also are both currently hesitant to weigh in on "unique" or "begotten," and leave it ambiguous. NASB95 is, in my view, the best English translation of *that verse* among all of them. But I'm obviously biased and just say that because all their decisions about its ambiguities align precisely with mine! Lol
As a general matter, the NASB is good at technical accuracy, but sacrificing English readability (i.e., "Anglicized Greek"); NIV is supremely elegant English, but sacrificing some technical accuracy. It's a spectrum and depends on what you're using the translation for. As I say, every translation has its strengths and weaknesses, and the most important translation is the one you read! :)
Thank you.
Thank you! I will study this and think on it.