The New American Standard Bible's Change to "God the only Son" at John 1:18

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

The New American Standard Version has announced an update for 2020 (NASB 2020)

One interesting change will be at John 1:18

Where the 1995 edition had "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

The NASB 2020 now has "No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him."

There is not one manuscript and Greek text that has both the words "God" (theos) and "Son" (huios) at this one verse. The only reason the two are combined, (as in the horrible NIV Bible) is for theological purposes, and nothing else.

Other Bibles have manipulated this text as well:

"the only Son, who is God" Beck

"the only Son, Deity Himself" C.B. Williams

"the only Son, who is the same as God" Good News Bible

"God the only Son" Expanded Bible

"The one and only Son, who is himself God" HCSB/NIV

"The only Son, who is truly God" CEV

NAB: "The only Son, God," NAB

"God the only Son" Common Edition

"God the Only Son" Twentieth Century NT

"God the only Son" NRSV

John's gospel also has two different readings at John 21:15 where some manuscripts and versions have "Simon, son of Jonah" or "Simon, son of John." However, no one thinks to combine the two to read "Simon, son of John, who is Jonah."

All of the above seeks to water down what clearly points to generation. I think that there is strong evidence that the original reads ‘an only-begotten god,’ or even, an ‘only-generated God,’ which is why mainstream trinitarian Christians rail against this reading, and which is why it is very likely to have been changed to monogenes huios during later centuries by scribes with this Trinitarian bias, since it clearly proclaims Christ to be a god that has been derived, generated or originated by another. A lesser god in other words.

Bible translator Jay Green (LITV, MKJV, King James 2, King James 3, The Gnostics, The New Version, and the Deity of Christ) rejects the reading and explains of Vaticanus that "in John 1:18 refers to Christ as the `only begotten God.' How can anyone claim that one that is begotten is at the same time essential God, equal in every aspect to God the Father, and to God the Holy Spirit? This makes Christ to be a created Being." (Unholy Hands on the Bible edited by Jay. P. Green, Sr.; Sovereign Grace Publishers; p.12).

Also:

"It would also be possible to render the second reading an 'only begotten god!' emphasizing the quality, and this has appealed to some who see in it a strong affirmation of Christ's deity. HOWEVER, IF CHRIST RECEIVED HIS 'GODHOOD' THROUGH THE BEGETTING PROCESS THEN HE CANNOT BE THE ETERNALLY PRE-EXISTING SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. Nor is 'only begotten' analogous 'firstborn', referring to priority of position - that would place the Son above the Father. No matter how one looks at it, the UBS [and also Westcott and Hort, Nestle Aland] reading INTRODUCES A SERIOUS ANOMALY." [Emphasis Mine] _What Difference Does it Make_ by Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD.

Also: "The oldest known Greek manuscripts, P66 and P75, read only begotten God. However, these manuscripts all come from the Alexandrian line and smack of ancient Gnosticism. The Gnostics taught that Christ was a begotten god, created by God the Father, whom they called the Unbegotten God."
https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html

All of the above want to blame Gnosticism for this, as they cannot see beyond trinitarianism, but Dr. Pickering adds some interesting comments regarding the translation "but God the Only Son" which he calls "a bad translation of a bad text" and "God the One and Only" which he calls "a pious fraud."

By translating monogenes as "unique" or "only" and combining "God" with "Son" you can now turn a Scripture that is deadly to your Christology and give it a 180 degree turn to your benefit.

Michael Marlowe, at http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html interestingly writes of the NIV's similar rendering of this passage: "The NIV committee has preferred MONOGENHS QEOS for text-critical reasons which seem sufficient to them, but in the translation we see all this twisting and turning, because a straightforward rendering of the Greek phrase MONOGENHS QEOS appears to be polytheistic, and the translators are trying to avoid that appearance. But they cannot find an exegetically plausible rendering which avoids the appearance of polytheism."

This Scripture, in one way or another has always been problematic for mainstream Christians, even when they try to render John 1:18 as "God only begotten." As W. J. Hickie writes in his Greek English Lexicon to the New Testament (1963 edition), "It is hard to see why monogenes theos must be translated "the only begotten Son," while monogenes theos, which is given by Westcott and Tregelles after the very oldest MSS, must not be translated the only begotten god, but god only begotten."

Buchsel adds (TDNT IV 740, n 14) "/monogenes theos/ can only mean 'an only-begotten God'; to render 'an only-begotten, one who is God' is an exegetical invention. It can hardly be credited of Jn., who is  distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression."

If we look at John 1:18 in the most natural way we have several instances (John 1:1 and John 17:3) in John's Gospel pointing to another who is exists in addition to hO QEOS (the God), and this one is "a god/a divine being" or "god" with qualification, to wit, an "only-begotten god".