Plural "You" in John 1:51
My third point, drawn from John 1:47-51, I labeled "Be ready for the unexpected." In my initial study of this passage, I noticed that in the Greek that in v. 51 Jesus shifts from simply addressing Nathaniel to addressing other disciples who were presumably present. Translating a plural you into English can be a bit tricky since we technically don't have a separate word in standard English for the second person plural. A fairly literal translation of this verse would read something like this:
And he said to him, "Truly, truly I say to y'all [ὑμῖν], y'all will see [ὄψεσθε] heaven open...
Of course, I can translate with y'all because I grew up in the south. And I should also mention that the KJV communicates the second person plural (at least clearly in the second instance) because Elizabethan English also allowed for the distinction by using the now archaic ye:
And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open (John 1:51 KJV)
Regardless, when there is a shift of person in the Bible such as that in v. 51, I readily admit that it's not always significant. But here I believe it is. Jesus' message of what a disciple would experience was not something meant for Nathaniel alone. A few translations make an effort to represent the second person plural, but most traditionally have not. Originally, I had been planning to use the NLT for this message, not only because I believe it communicated the entire passage well, but especially because it brought out the plural "you" here:
Then he said, “I tell you the truth, you will all see heaven open... (John 1:51 NLT)
However, then on Friday, I received my copy of the NET Readers Bible in the mail. Looking at the passage and especially v. 51, I was pleased to see the second person plural rendered here as well:
He continued, “I tell all of you the solemn truth–you will see heaven opened... (John 1:51 NET)
Thus I began my little "NET for a month" experiment and preached from it on Sunday.
I should point out that a number of other translations mention the plural "you's" in the footnotes, including the ESV, HCSB, NRSV, NIV and TNIV. The REB is another translation that renders the plural in the actual text.
So which is better: text or notes? I would suggest that the better rendering is when it can be done in the text for the sake of those listening without a Bible in front of them.
Feel free to leave your opinion in the comments.
The Evolution of John 1:18 [UPDATED]
| John 1:18 in the NIV Tradition | |
|---|---|
| NIV (1978) | No one has ever seen God, but God the only* Son,** who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Notes: *Or but God the only begotten **Some manuscripts but the only Son (or but the only begotten Son) |
| NIV (1984) | No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,* **who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Notes: *Or the only begotten **Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son |
| NIrV (1996; 1999 revision reads the same) | No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like. No notes. |
| NIV (Inclusive Language Edition, released only in UK, 1996) | No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,* **who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Notes: *Or the only begotten **Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son |
| TNIV (2005) | No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and* is in the closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. Note: *Some manuscripts but the only Son, who |
The textual issue here is well known. Older translations used the phrase "only begotten Son" [μονογενὴς υἱός] but with the discovery of p66 and p75, many later twentieth century translations began using "only begotten God" [μονογενὴς θεὸς]. In Metzger's Textual Commentary (I have the 3rd edition; someone let me know if later editions read differently) the latter reading is given a B rating because p66 and p75 are older and μονογενὴς θεὸς is undeniably the more difficult reading. A concise but thorough explanation of the issues is found in the NET Bible notes. Interestingly, the HCSB is the only contemporary translation I've come across that reverts back to "one and only Son" [μονογενὴς υἱός].
The transitions in the NIV tradition are interesting because in the original 1978 edition, both Son [υἱός] and God [θεὸς] were incorporated into the text, although this was dropped in the NIV's final form (1984) in favor of the more accepted μονογενὴς θεὸς. And although the Inclusive Language Edition of the NIV in 1996 made no changes to the 1984 NIV regarding this verse, a year earlier, the NIrV went back to the 1978 NIV's incorporation of both textual traditions. Both traditions are also incorporated into the TNIV, although the emphasis surprisingly seems to be on the later textual tradition, μονογενὴς υἱός, translated as "the one and only Son."
I'd really be interested to know the reasoning behind using both "God" and "Son" in the rendering of the verse. Although the TNIV.info website offers a rationale for the wording in John 1:18, it's not specific enough to fully address this issue.
Incidentally, a number of other translations have also incorporated both Son and God into their rendering of John 1:18 including the REB, NRSV, NLT, and GWT, so the TNIV is in good company. However my only problem with using both traditions in the verse is that a translation has been created which could not possibly be reflected in any ancient manuscript. I'd be interested in anyone's insight into this issue.
Update (10/23, 9:30 AM): Be sure to click the comments link below for a solution to this problem by Suzanne McCarthy (whose mastery of Greek is far superior to mine). She says that the translations are not combining two textual traditions at all, but rather
Monogenes by itself is considered to be the "only son." It is read as a noun not an adjective in this verse. Have a look at John 1:14. So no one is combining two readings of a manuscript, at least not this time.
Be sure to read her entire explanation in the comments below. I do remember reading that μονογενὴς by itself could be rendered "only Son," but I didn't grasp that this is what the TNIV translators were doing in this verse. And I still find it very interesting that they delivered a similar rendering in the very first edition (1978) NIV, and then moved away from it by the 1984 release. Surely those debates must have been interesting. And obviously, this way of rendering John 1:18 is not a fully accepted solution since there is not agreement among all recent translations, but there is certainly an overwhelming consensus.
For the sake of comparison, here is the full Greek text for the verse for reference and the translations that have used similar renderings to what is done in the original NIV and TNIV:
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
________________________
No one has ever seen God; but God's only Son, he who is nearest to the Father's heart, he has made him known (NEB, 1970).
No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (NIV, 1978).
No one has ever seen God; God’s only Son, he who is nearest to the Father’s heart, has made him known (REB, 1989).
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known (NRSV, 1990).
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known (GNT, 1992)
No one has ever seen God. God’s only Son, the one who is closest to the Father’s heart, has made him known (GWT, 1995).
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like (CEV, 1995).
No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like (NIrV, 1996/1999).
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart; he has told us about him (NLT1, 1996)
No one has ever seen God. But the one and only Son is himself God and is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us (NLT2, 2004).
“No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known (TNIV, 2005).
________________________
Translations rendering μονογενὴς as an adjective modifying θεὸς (this cannot be called a "traditional" rendering because it only occurs beginning in 20th Century):
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known (NIV, 1984/1996).
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (NASB, 1995).
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known (ESV, 2001)
________________________
The only modern translation using the older (pre-p66 and p75) rendering:
No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son--the One who is at the Father’s side--He has revealed Him (HCSB, 2004).