Did we mistranslate Jesus into being "Begotten" from God?

[Moliere]

My journey through the uncorrelated New Testament is getting to be more fun. I mean that in a good way. I found some incredible insights for me personally and have also found many great insights that I've shared in GD.

So one major difference I've noted is that the NRSV translation uses the term "only Son" instead of "only Begotten Son" as shown in John 1:14 (although I guess John 3:16 is more popular):

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.

I'm no Greek scholar but I figured I'd do some looking and found that the Greek word used in this sense is "monogenes". "Mono" could be translated to mean "only, single, or unique" and "genes", derived from genos, could be translated to mean "race, species, or kind". Put those together and you get something in the ballpark of "only one of his kind". There is really no indication of being born or uniquely begotten. In fact, I think a different verb (gennao?) in Greek would indicate being born or begotten.

So this (meaning it's a better translation) seems to be the reason that the NRSV uses "only" and leaves off "begotten". The NIV uses "one and only".

So what does this mean. Well, maybe it doesn't mean much, but given the fact that "only begotten" occurs in the Book of Mormon (9 times), Doctrine and Covenants (13), and the PoGP (25) it raises some interesting questions, the most obvious of which is in the title of this thread.

Obviously Brigham Young had some interesting thoughts on this, but it raises
another question for me in regards to revelation. It seems to point less towards someone receiving direct revelation from God (obviously God wouldn't have allowed a mistranslation into the BoM or the D&C) and more towards inspiration coming from the Bible to create modern day revelation.

So what would happen to our theology if the KJV translators had made the correct translation? Or I guess this probably goes back to the Latin translations (Vulgate?) since I believe most of the KJV NT came from those sources. Would we still believe and teach that Christ was literally part human and part God? Would it be more a spiritual connotation that Jesus was a god? Would we believe he was spiritually begotten and physically transformed into a god at the time of his baptism (like some believe)? Or is it possible that God inspired the translators to mistranslate the text into the proper connotation?

Questions, questions, questions....

I really should have studied Greek in college

[All-American]

My journey through the uncorrelated New Testament is getting to be more fun. I mean that in a good way. I found some incredible insights for me personally and have also found many great insights that I've shared in GD.

So one major difference I've noted is that the NRSV translation uses the term "only Son" instead of "only Begotten Son" as shown in John 1:14 (although I guess John 3:16 is more popular):





I'm no Greek scholar but I figured I'd do some looking and found that the Greek word used in this sense is "monogenes". "Mono" could be translated to mean "only, single, or unique" and "genes", derived from genos, could be translated to mean "race, species, or kind". Put those together and you get something in the ballpark of "only one of his kind". There is really no indication of being born or uniquely begotten. In fact, I think a different verb (gennao?) in Greek would indicate being born or begotten.

So this (meaning it's a better translation) seems to be the reason that the NRSV uses "only" and leaves off "begotten". The NIV uses "one and only".

So what does this mean. Well, maybe it doesn't mean much, but given the fact that "only begotten" occurs in the Book of Mormon (9 times), Doctrine and Covenants (13), and the PoGP (25) it raises some interesting questions, the most obvious of which is in the title of this thread.

Obviously Brigham Young had some interesting thoughts on this, but it raises
another question for me in regards to revelation. It seems to point less towards someone receiving direct revelation from God (obviously God wouldn't have allowed a mistranslation into the BoM or the D&C) and more towards inspiration coming from the Bible to create modern day revelation.

So what would happen to our theology if the KJV translators had made the correct translation? Or I guess this probably goes back to the Latin translations (Vulgate?) since I believe most of the KJV NT came from those sources. Would we still believe and teach that Christ was literally part human and part God? Would it be more a spiritual connotation that Jesus was a god? Would we believe he was spiritually begotten and physically transformed into a god at the time of his baptism (like some believe)? Or is it possible that God inspired the translators to mistranslate the text into the proper connotation?

Questions, questions, questions....

I really should have studied Greek in college

I do not believe we mistranslated Jesus into being begotten. You've found the right Greek word-- μονογενοῦς (monogenous), but you should think of "genous" as being related to the verb γεννάω (gennao), which means "to beget" (for lack of a better English word). The verb is the one found in Matthew's genealogy: "Abraham begot Isaac". The verb of which Abraham is the subject and Isaac the direct object, ἐγέννησεν (egennesen) should probably suggest the same relationship between them as the relationship between God and Christ. I would probably translate it as "only begotten" (which of necessity would mean "only begotten son").

[Moliere]

I do not believe we mistranslated Jesus into being begotten. You've found the right Greek word-- μονογενοῦς (monogenous), but you should think of "genous" as being related to the verb γεννάω (gennao), which means "to beget" (for lack of a better English word). The verb is the one found in Matthew's genealogy: "Abraham begot Isaac". The verb of which Abraham is the subject and Isaac the direct object, ἐγέννησεν (egennesen) should probably suggest the same relationship between them as the relationship between God and Christ. I would probably translate it as "only begotten" (which of necessity would mean "only begotten son").

So why do the modern translations not translate it with the term "begotten"?

I appreciate your response above. I really know nothing about Greek so I'm left to read what others say on it, which in this case is all over the board. I just find it odd that the NRSV and NIV take out the "begotten" although I guess the NRSV has it in there as a footnote.

[All-American]

So why do the modern translations not translate it with the term "begotten"?

I appreciate your response above. I really know nothing about Greek so I'm left to read what others say on it, which in this case is all over the board. I just find it odd that the NRSV and NIV take out the "begotten" although I guess the NRSV has it in there as a footnote.

The NRSV and other modern translations try to translate the bible into contemporary English. They probably translated it as they did because "begotten" isn't really all that commonly used in English these days. We don't really have single word functioning as a verb which means "to be the father of." We have the words "sire" or "beget", but they're not commonly used anymore. Notice that in Matthew 1:2, that's exactly how the NRSV translates the Greek verb ἐγέννησεν: "Abraham was the father of Isaac."

The problem is ultimately that Greek and English are different languages. There's no way around that. That's the reason why there's any benefit to be gained in learning other languages instead of having a computer translate it for us.

[Babs]

The NRSV and other modern translations try to translate the bible into contemporary English. They probably translated it as they did because "begotten" isn't really all that commonly used in English these days.

I doubt that was the reason. The whole point of the fairly recent NRSV translation was to correct some of the misleading translations resulting from the NKJ/NIV/NASB/LB emphasis on modern readability.

[All-American]

I doubt that was the reason. The whole point of the fairly recent NRSV translation was to correct some of the misleading translations resulting from the NKJ/NIV/NASB/LB emphasis on modern readability.

Two of those four translations (the NIV and the LB) translate μονογενὴς as "the one and only son." The other two (NKJ and NASB) translate it as "the only begotten." The NRSV translates it as "the only son." There's an argument to be made that the NRSV is following along with the other translations in letting readability guide as it translates this particular word.

The NRSV translation of Matthew 1:2 also shows that the translators prefer to translate the verb (and concept) γεννάω in terms of status rather than of action: "Abraham was the father of Isaac" rather than "Abraham begat Isaac". "Begat" is much closer to the idea that γεννάω represents, but we just don't say "begat" anymore. Here, they went with the translation that is better sounding English, even if it isn't doing exactly the same thing as the original text. Even if the general purpose of the NRSV was to mitigate an overcorrection, it is still trying to produce a more legible text.

That, by the way, is absolutely the prerogative of a translator. Any translation has to navigate the tension between what the original text says and how to convey that idea in the translated language. The first way to tell that a given text is not a wholly faithful translation is that it is in a different language.

[LA Ute]

Two of those four translations (the NIV and the LB) translate μονογενὴς as "the one and only son." The other two (NKJ and NASB) translate it as "the only begotten." The NRSV translates it as "the only son." There's an argument to be made that the NRSV is following along with the other translations in letting readability guide as it translates this particular word.

The NRSV translation of Matthew 1:2 also shows that the translators prefer to translate the verb (and concept) γεννάω in terms of status rather than of action: "Abraham was the father of Isaac" rather than "Abraham begat Isaac". "Begat" is much closer to the idea that γεννάω represents, but we just don't say "begat" anymore. Here, they went with the translation that is better sounding English, even if it isn't doing exactly the same thing as the original text. Even if the general purpose of the NRSV was to mitigate an overcorrection, it is still trying to produce a more legible text.

That, by the way, is absolutely the prerogative of a translator. Any translation has to navigate the tension between what the original text says and how to convey that idea in the translated language. The first way to tell that a given text is not a wholly faithful translation is that it is in a different language.

All of which supports the axiom that there is no translation without interpretation. Anyone who speaks more than one language and tries to translate runs into this.

[wuapinmon]

All of which supports the axiom that there is no translation without interpretation. Anyone who speaks more than one language and tries to translate runs into this.

Hermeneutics rules.

[LA Ute]

Hermeneutics rules.

Who was he - an early translator?

[Hanokh]

I side with All American on this one.

There are no important variant readings for this phrase, so the differences come down to how the translators felt "mongenous" was best rendered. You will notice that this passage does not specifically say "Jesus was the Father's only begotten son"; it says his glory was "AS the only son of *a* father".

And yes on what LA Ute said.. all translation involves interpretation, as is expressed so memorably in the Italian proverb, "translator, traitor". (traduttore, traditore)

Discussing translation differences is great! I will have to keep my eye open for these threads.

Note that this passage does not say the only son of THE father but the only son of A father. I think given that this passage is not explicitly referring to Jesus as God's only begotten, they softened the language to reflect the distinction.

I think "begotten" is removed because it is not in common parlance. The NRSV takes it out also in 1 John 4:9, for example, it says "God's only Son". "Begotten" is also a bit redundant, as fine as the Christological debates have been "begotten not made" etc.

But this is not a mistranslation... if anything, as All American has said, "gennao" expressed "begotten" quite clearly; the translators decide whether or not it fits into the target language.

[Babs]

I side with All American on this one.

There are no important variant readings for this phrase, so the differences come down to how the translators felt "mongenous" was best rendered. You will notice that this passage does not specifically say "Jesus was the Father's only begotten son"; it says his glory was "AS the only son of *a* father".

And yes on what LA Ute said.. all translation involves interpretation, as is expressed so memorably in the Italian proverb, "translator, traitor". (traduttore, traditore)

Discussing translation differences is great! I will have to keep my eye open for these threads.

Note that this passage does not say the only son of THE father but the only son of A father. I think given that this passage is not explicitly referring to Jesus as God's only begotten, they softened the language to reflect the distinction.

I think "begotten" is removed because it is not in common parlance. The NRSV takes it out also in 1 John 4:9, for example, it says "God's only Son". "Begotten" is also a bit redundant, as fine as the Christological debates have been "begotten not made" etc.

But this is not a mistranslation... if anything, as All American has said, "gennao" expressed "begotten" quite clearly; the translators decide whether or not it fits into the target language.

Welcome to the board! You should stop by Ellis Island and introduce yourself!

[Hanokh]

Thanks for the welcome Babs!

[Moliere]

The NRSV translation of Matthew 1:2 also shows that the translators prefer to translate the verb (and concept) γεννάω in terms of status rather than of action: "Abraham was the father of Isaac" rather than "Abraham begat Isaac". "Begat" is much closer to the idea that γεννάω represents, but we just don't say "begat" anymore. Here, they went with the translation that is better sounding English, even if it isn't doing exactly the same thing as the original text. Even if the general purpose of the NRSV was to mitigate an overcorrection, it is still trying to produce a more legible text.

My research on this stuff has mostly been whatever I can find on Google. Most of it is from evangelicals (or maybe disaffected evangelicals) and self-proclaimed Biblical scholars and the arguments are all over the board but it seems they always get to the same conclusion....that begotten is a mistranslation. However, today I found an interesting article from a LDS guy at By Common Consent. I hadn't seen this before my original post but it seems he is making the same arguments that is made in most of the other articles I've read and he comes to the same conclusion.

I've copied a small portion here, which seems to differentiate between gennao and genes:

The expression “only begotten” in the KJV is a mistranslation of monogenes, which derives from monos “only” and the root GEN, which can refer to either descent or type. Note, for instance, that the English words “kin” and “kind” both derive from this same Greek root. Thus, if in context monogenes means the only number of a kin, the sense is “sole descent, the only child of one’s parents.” Conversely, if in context the word means the only one of a kind, in a qualitative sense, the connotation is “only, peerless, matchless, unique, of singular importance, the only one of its kind.” If the word specifically were meant to convey the connotation “only begotten,” it would be monogennetos, from the verb gennao “to beget.” The fact that monogenes has only one “n” in the second half of the word and not two is a clear indication that it is not derived from gennao.

I hate to post this argument again, but I'm seeing it frequently and it makes sense....at least to a non-Greek speaker (why couldn't they have written the original texts in French!). But what I think I'm hearing from AA is that the two verbs are basically the same and monogenes could definitely mean "Only Begotten" especially given the context.

I say given the context because it is apparent the authors go to great lengths to show that Christ is not begotten (see I used it in todays parlance) of Joseph or any other man, but he is begotten of the holy spirit, which is God (or as a Mormon we'd say just God since the two are distinct for us).

[Moliere]

There are no important variant readings for this phrase, so the differences come down to how the translators felt "mongenous" was best rendered. You will notice that this passage does not specifically say "Jesus was the Father's only begotten son"; it says his glory was "AS the only son of *a* father".

And yes on what LA Ute said.. all translation involves interpretation, as is expressed so memorably in the Italian proverb, "translator, traitor". (traduttore, traditore)

Discussing translation differences is great! I will have to keep my eye open for these threads.

Note that this passage does not say the only son of THE father but the only son of A father. I think given that this passage is not explicitly referring to Jesus as God's only begotten, they softened the language to reflect the distinction.

I think "begotten" is removed because it is not in common parlance. The NRSV takes it out also in 1 John 4:9, for example, it says "God's only Son". "Begotten" is also a bit redundant, as fine as the Christological debates have been "begotten not made" etc.

But this is not a mistranslation... if anything, as All American has said, "gennao" expressed "begotten" quite clearly; the translators decide whether or not it fits into the target language.

Thanks for the insight. It seems like you know your stuff around this a bit. I'm just a lowly CPA having some fun with it this year so it's nice to have some substantive opinions on the matter.

I think that even if we could determine whether "begotten" should or should not be used, the difference really doesn't matter since we have some scriptures that speak to us all becoming sons of God (I think John hits on this a bit) and so we are all in a way "begotten" of God. It's also interesting that John is the only place in the NT that Christ is called the Only Begotten. You'd think if it was that important the other authors would have emphasized it.

It just makes me wonder if Brigham Young had to make a distinction between Christ and us (since we are all considered sons of God) and in doing that he took that Christ was literally (and some, not me, take this to the very, very literal interpretation) "begotten" of God and is thus the Only Begotten Son in the flesh (on which subject there is a discussion in the BCC post linked above).

The whole "begotten" spiritually thing is also interesting given the footnotes in the NRSV around Luke's account of Jesus' baptism. Luke records God's voice as saying "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased" but the footnote indicates that in some ancient texts it reads "You are my Son, today I have begotten you; with you I am well pleased." This makes it seem like there is room for both interpretations: That Christ was the Son of God in the flesh from birth or that Christ was spiritually begotten of God at the time of his baptism. Either way, Christ is still begotten of God, right?

Welcome to the board! You should stop by Ellis Island and introduce yourself!

Definitely, just avoid use the modified Pellegrino form...the one without the wuap welcome question.

[All-American]

I side with All American on this one.

There are no important variant readings for this phrase, so the differences come down to how the translators felt "mongenous" was best rendered. You will notice that this passage does not specifically say "Jesus was the Father's only begotten son"; it says his glory was "AS the only son of *a* father".

And yes on what LA Ute said.. all translation involves interpretation, as is expressed so memorably in the Italian proverb, "translator, traitor". (traduttore, traditore)

Discussing translation differences is great! I will have to keep my eye open for these threads.

Note that this passage does not say the only son of THE father but the only son of A father. I think given that this passage is not explicitly referring to Jesus as God's only begotten, they softened the language to reflect the distinction.

I think "begotten" is removed because it is not in common parlance. The NRSV takes it out also in 1 John 4:9, for example, it says "God's only Son". "Begotten" is also a bit redundant, as fine as the Christological debates have been "begotten not made" etc.

But this is not a mistranslation... if anything, as All American has said, "gennao" expressed "begotten" quite clearly; the translators decide whether or not it fits into the target language.

If you're going to be really picky, it doesn't say that Jesus is the only begotten of "a" father, either. English needs a definite ("the") or an indefinite article ("a" or "an") to make good grammatical sentences. Greek does not. Consider John 1:1, for example--καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Definite articles before "logos" and "theon", but not "theos." Some have tried to make this mean that τὸν θεόν has to refer to something that θεὸς does not. I don't find that necessary, any more than the lack of an article in John 1:3 means that the verse talks about two different kinds of life (ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων). As a general rule, I try not to read any significance out of the use or ommission of a definite article. They just don't do as much in classical Greek as they do in modern English. (Latin, I should note, does away with articles altogether.)