John 1:18

The first step in a full study of a text is to "establish the text".
Don't let this one particular variant control your preferences for the whole Bible.
As you can, study each passage out.

Re: the manuscripts and numbers; a good site to do your own research is LaParola [link]

In this verse, as a simple rule, the versions that follow the textus receptus use “son”; those that follow the critical text use “God”.

It’s not a slam dunk for either reading;
I prefer English versions that footnote the variant.

IMO the general meaning of the verse doesn’t seem to be affected with either reading.

Rob

 

The Gnostic & Arian Corruption of John 1:18
http://studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/john1n18.html

Other source quoted:

Finally, the begotten Son VS the begotten God -- Edward F Hills quoted:

 

Askjo, the gist of what you're copying and pasting is that anything that disagrees with the textus receptus is a perversion of God's word. Of course this viewpoint is ill-conceived and doesn't take into account the variant readings found in various versions of the textus receptus. Maybe you can tell us, Askjo, just which version of the textus receptus is the perfect one?

 

If it helps, here is some 'raw' data according to one source --

TEXT: "the only unique God, who is in the bosom"
MSS: p66 p75 S B C* L 33 syr(p) cop(north)

TEXT: "the only unique Son, who is in the bosom"
MSS: A C3 K X {W(supp)} Delta Theta Pi Psi f1 f13 28 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect {most lat} most vg syr(c,h,pal)​

Of course, all those letters & numbers represent Greek manuscripts and other ancient documents that have been catalogued. There are a few more listed for "Son" than for "God"; does that mean that "Son" is what John wrote? I stated that it was 'raw' data because most of us know nothing in detail about the 'quality' of these witnesses: Which are the more reliable copies (having fewer scribal errors)? Are older MSS more likely to represent the original text because they may have been copied fewer times? Does it matter where these MSS were geographically located when found? Which ones might show evidence of tampering?

One thing that is often overlooked when the great number of Greek MSS are discussed is that not all those MSS are complete; some of these artifacts contain just a few verses or a few chapters in length. Therefore, there are not 5,600 ancient Greek witnesses of John 1:18 to compare. Secondly, many of these ancient MSS have yet to be thoroughly examined. Therefore, not all the MSS with John 1:18 are necessarily included here. MSS are continuously being discovered and studied. What does all this mean? It means that the number of witness for either variant could increase. Regardless of which one is 'right', what could account for so many preserved 'wrong' MSS (especially if they are diverse over time, and/or in location)?

BTW - there are at least two other minor variations in the MSS record.

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=16291

 

I believe it to be first and foremeost to establish the context so any tetxs that disagree would be laid aside.:sleeping_2:

 

There are several misconceptions in the paragraph above. Addressed in reverse from the last comment --

The Robert Estienne's ('Stephanus') Greek text is not a manuscript itself; it is a printed critical text collated from various hand-written Greek documents and other printed texts. His third edition (1550) is a standard among the 30 or so printed Greek NT editions collectively known as the textus receptus (the 'received text' or just 'TR'); this term derives from a latin phrase found in the introduction of the Elzevirs' 1633 edition (some 83 years after Erasmus' published his first Latin-Greek edition). The other two TRs worthy of mention here are: Beza's 1565 which was likely used heavily by the AV translators; and Scrivner's 1894 edition in which he works from the KJV English to determine Greek that could have been potentially used.

Next, "God/god" (Greek theos) is NOT the reading of the 'Recieved Text'; the TRs have "Son/son" (huios). This is the essence of the whole controversy, because you will find theos in the NA and UBS texts. You would likely find the other listed as a variant in the apparatus.

Finally, the NLT has not "switched", although they have changed some words in the second edition. The NLT avoids the conflict by apparently including renderings for both huios and theos --

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. (1996)

No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God,* is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us. (2004)
*Footnotes:
1:18 Some manuscripts read But the one and only Son.​

I could only find one edition of the ESV online --

No one has ever seen God; the only God, [1] who is at the Father's side, [2] he has made him known. (2001)
Footnotes:
[1] 1:18 Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
[2] 1:18 Greek in the bosom of the Father​

 

The Student's Guide to Textual Variants tries to help non-greek readers to understand the issues.

Here is the key to the abbreviations for the manuscripts.

 

Here is the note on John 1.18 in the NET Bible, which renders it this way:
Now 34 the Word became flesh 35 and took up residence 36 among us. We 37 saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, 38 full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
at http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Joh&chapter=1#n45

 

The word "bosom" can be interpreted as "position". This scripture is referring to Jesus as God.