[1] In this study ‘deity’ signifies the quality of being God (or a god); ‘Deity’ designates one who is God (or a god). Although the first is often equated with ‘divinity’, that term need signify no more than the special presence of Godly (or godly) power in one's life. Therefore, ‘divinity’ will not be used as a synonym of ‘deity’ in this study.

[2] Taylor, V., ‘Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?’, ExpTim 73 (1961–1962) 116–18Google Scholar [reprinted in Taylor's, New Testament Essays (London: Epworth, 1970) 83–9]Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., ‘Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?’, TS 26 (1965) 545–73Google Scholar [reprinted in Brown's, Jesus: God and Man (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1967) 1–38].Google Scholar

[3] Brown (‘Does the NT Call Jesus God’) regards John 1. 1; 20. 28; Heb 1. 8–9 as certain, John 1. 18; Rom 9. 5; Titus 2. 13; 2 Pet 1. 1; 1 John 5. 20 as probable. Taylor (‘Does the NT Call Jesus God’) regards John (1. 1); 20. 28 as certain, Titus 2.13; 2 Pet 1.1 as ‘quite possible’. [Concerning John 1. 1 Taylor notes that the Logos is called θεός, but not ό θεός (117 [85–6]; see below on the significance of that.)

[4] Boobyer, G. H., ‘Jesus as “Theos” in the New Testament’, BJRL 50 (1967–1968) 260.Google Scholar

[5] In this study the use of ‘John’ or ‘Johannine’ to designate the Fourth Gospel, the related Epistles, or their author(s) is a matter of convenience and reflects no judgment regarding that authorship.

[6] Fortna, R. T., ‘Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Redaction-Critical Perspectives’, NTS 21 (1974–1975) 489–504. Precisely what Fortna means by ‘full divinity’ is not immediately apparent (see n. 1 above). He certainly concludes that John affirms the ‘non-earthly divinity’ of Jesus, in contrast to the divine humanity of a θεῑῑος άνήρ (490–8). But on the one hand, Fortna calls this ‘the image of Jesus as in some sense a god’ (494). Yet, on the other hand, he insists that John seeks to refute the charge of ditheism (494, 498). That, of course, necessitates identifying Jesus' ‘non-earthly divinity’ as the deity of God. In either case Fortna seems to be saying more than Boobyer would allow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[7] Mastin, B. A., ‘A Neglected Feature of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel: θεός in the Christology of John’. NTS 22 (1975–1976) 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[8] Of the dozen passages examined by Brown, he places nine hi this category (‘Does the NT Call Jesus God’, 551–61 [10–23]).

[9] Cf. Boobyer, , ‘Jesus as Theos’, 255–6.Google Scholar

[10] The second variant takes two forms: ό μονογενής θεός and μονογενής θεός.

[11] Major witnesses to ό μονογενής νίός include A C³ K (W) X Δ Θ Π Ψ and nearly all minuscules.

[12] Major witnesses to this reading include (see n. 10 above): ό μονογενής θεός, p⁷⁵ א^c 33 boh; μονογενής θεός, p⁶⁶ א* BC* L. That this reading is too difficult is clearly implied when it is rejected for failing to ‘yield a tolerable sense’ (Tasker, R. V. G., ed., The Greek New Testament: Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible, 1961 [Oxford: Oxford University Press; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964] 424–5Google Scholar; see below).

Several scholars have supported a third variant, ό μονογενής, as the reading most likely to give rise to the others. So Tasker, 425; Boismard, M.-E., Le prologue de Saint Jean (LD 11; Paris: du Cerf, 1953) 90Google Scholar; Sanders, J. N., A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (ed. and completed by Mastin, B. A.; HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 85 n. 1.Google Scholar But the failure of this reading to appear in any Greek manuscript of the Fourth Gospel precludes its originality. See Mastin, , ‘θεός in John’, 38Google Scholar; Hort, F. J. A., Two Dissertations (Cambridge/London: Macmillan, 1876) 11–12Google Scholar; Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1972) 99.Google Scholar

[13] Current editions of both the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the UBSGNT read θεός. The latter (3rd ed., 1975) is the GNT text used in this study.

[14] Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St. John (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 169Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St. John, 1 (Herder's Theological Commentary on the New Testament; Montreal: Palm, 1968) 280.Google Scholar Yet even these scholars are rather guarded in their support of νίός. Contrast A. Wikgren's vigorous rejection of θεός in Metzger's, B. M.A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 198.Google Scholar

[15] Barrett, , Gospel according to John, 169.Google Scholar Cf. Büchsel, F., ‘μονογενής’, TDNT 4 (1967) 740 n. 14Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 81 n. 2Google Scholar; Hoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel (ed. Davey, F. N.; 2nd ed.; London: Faber & Faber, 1947) 153–4Google Scholar; Lightfoot, R. H., St. John's Gospel: A Commentary (ed. Evans, C. F.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1956) 90.Google Scholar

[16] Tasker, , Greek New Testament, 424–5.Google Scholar Cf. Büchsel, , ‘μονογενής’, 740 n. 14.Google Scholar

[17] See, e.g. Lindars, Gospel of John, 96: ‘Monogenēs … means either “one only-begotten” or “one unique in kind”’; Finegan, J., Encountering New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974) §136Google Scholar: ‘Note that μονογενής (“only begotten”) may also be translated “only” or “unique”’; Marsh, J., The Gospel of St. John (Pelican New Testament Commentaries: Harmonds-worth, England: Penguin, 1968) 112: ‘The adjective only [μονογενής] might be translated “only begotten”.’Google Scholar

[18] Büchsel, , ‘μονογενής’, 741.Google Scholar This is also known as the Son's ‘procession’ from the Father; see Schnackenburg, , Gospel according to John, 271Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John, I–XII (AB 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) 13.Google Scholar

[19] Moody, D., ‘God's Only Son: The Translation of John 3. 16 in the Revised Standard Version’, JBL 72 (1953) 213–14.Google Scholar Cf. Brown, , Gospel according to John, 13Google Scholar; Westcott, B. F., The Epistles of St. John (4th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1905) 169–71.Google Scholar

[20] Brown, , Gospel according to John, 13.Google Scholar Cf. Moody, , ‘God's Only Son’, 214–16.Google Scholar

[21] Hort, , Two Dissertations, 16–17.Google Scholar

[22] Luke 7. 12 (the widow's son at Nain), 8. 42 (Jairus' daughter); John 3. 16, 18; 1 John 4. 9 (the Son of God).

[23] NEB, NAB, and JB agree with the RSV translation of μονογενής in all three passages; other versions may differ in one or more instances. At Luke 9. 38 Douay-Rheims reads ‘only one’; NASB reads ‘only boy’. AV, RV, ASV, NASB, Douay-Rheims, and Confraternity have the traditional ‘only begotten’ at John 1. 14; ‘only begotten son’ at Heb 11. 17. NIV reads ‘one and only Son’ at John 1. 14; ‘one and only son’ at Heb 11. 17. Thus only the Douay-Rheims translation of Luke 9. 38 conforms to Moody's suggested rendering of μονογενής.

[24] Moody's article tacitly supports this conclusion, for in examining the NT and LXX uses of μονογενής, he consistently renders the term as ‘only child’, even while insisting that it means ‘only’. Consider the following:

‘The epileptic boy healed by Jesus at the foot of the mountain is called the “only (mono-genēs) child” of his father [Luke 9:38; see above]. Strong evidence for translating monogenēs in Luke with the word “only” is found in the Septuagint translation of Judges 11. 34. Jephthah's daughter is called “his only child” [καί (ήν) αὔτη μονογενής (αύτῳῑ)]…. In the Apocrypha, Tobit 3: 15 says: “I am my father's only (monogenēs) child” [μονογενής ειμι τῳῑ πατρί μον] …. [Thus] monogenēs means “unique” or “only”’ (217).

The three passages cited by Moody are all examples of the absolute μονογενής, and in every instance he accepts ‘only child’ as the proper translation of that term. Yet in his concluding assertion that ‘monogenēs means “unique” or “only”’, Moody fails to mention ‘child’. Moreover, he conceals that omission by placing his explanatory ‘(monogenēs)’ after ‘only’, making it look as if μονογενής has been translated by that single word. Since he is actually rendering the term as ‘only child’, Moody clearly should have inserted ‘(monogenēs)’ after, rather than between, those two words.

[25] It is the inadequacy of these translations which has convinced some scholars that the phrase itself ‘does not yield a tolerable sense’ (see above, including n. 16).

[26] So NASB; Amplified New Testament; Büchsel, ‘μονογενής’, 740 n. 14; New World Translation (‘god’).

[27] So Lindars, , Gospel of John, 98–9Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , Gospel according to John, 279–80Google Scholar; Bernard, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1 (ICC 4; New York: Scribner's, 1929) 32Google Scholar; Marsh, , Gospel of John, 112.Google Scholar Others have the equivalent, ‘God only begotten’ - so R V mgn.; ASV mgn.; JB mgn.; Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, 153Google Scholar; Westcott, B. F., The Gospel according to St. John, 1 (London: John Murray, 1908) 67.Google Scholar On reading θεός appositionally, see below.

[28] Büchsel, , ‘μονογενής’, 740 n. 14. Büchsel's objection is well taken (see below, including n. 41). Accordingly, the inclusion of this translation in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation is not surprising, but its presence in the NASB and Amplified New Testament certainly is.Google Scholar

[29] So RSV mgn.; Moody, , ‘God's Only Son’, 218.Google Scholar

[30] So NEB mgn. Cf. Today's English Version, 1st ed. (1966): ‘the only One, who is what God is’; 2nd & 3rd eds. (1966, 1971): ‘the only One, who is the same as God’.

[31] The former if one inserts a comma between ‘the only God’ and ‘who is in the bosom of the Father’; the latter if one does not (cf. n. 40 below).

[32] On the textual witnesses see above, including nn. 11, 12. For a detailed analysis of that evidence see Finegan, NT Manuscripts, §§136–38, 144–45, 158–59, 170–71, 177–78, 181–82, 184–86, 188–200, 210–11; Hort, , Two Dissertations, 2–8.Google Scholar

[33] Although this argument ostensibly favours the reading, ό μονογενής (see n. 12 above), it equally supports (ό) μονογενής θεός, where μονογενής is also absolute (see below, including n. 39).

[34] See below.

[35] See n. 10 above.

[36] See n. 12 above.

[37] Metzger, , Commentary on the GNT, 198.Google Scholar Cf. Finegan, NT Manuscripts, §§212–15; Hort, , Two Dissertations, 8–10.Google Scholar

[38] μονογενής in 1. 14 (see above); θεός in 1. 1, 6, 12, 13, 18 (see below).

[39] Cf. Hort, , Two Dissertations, 14–15. Thus, in conformity with its use in 1. 14, μονογενής is also absolute in 1.18 - despite the fact that it is followed by another noun.Google Scholar

[40] See Abbott, E. A., Johannine Grammar (London: Black, 1906) §1938Google Scholar; Bernard, , Gospel according to John, 31–2Google Scholar; Marsh, , Gospel of John, 112Google Scholar; Hort, , Two Dissertations, 15Google Scholar. Cf. Origen's paraphrase in Contra Celsum 2.71: μονογενής γε ὢν θεός ό ⋯ν είς τόν κόλπον τοῡ πατρός.

An entirely non-appositional, or restrictive, reading of μονογενής θεός ό ⋯ν είς τόν κόλπον τονῑ πατρός would yield, in English, ‘the only-Son God who is in the bosom of the Father’ (see below on ‘only-Son God’). But this is nonsense, apparently distinguishing the Logos from at least one other ‘only-Son God’, who is not in the Father's bosom. Cf. above on ‘only God’.

[41] This criticism also applies to the translation, ‘only begotten God’ (see above, including nn. 26, 28).

[42] The application of θεός to Jesus elsewhere in the Gospel is of relatively little help in ascertaining John's view of that deity.

In 5. 18 and 10. 33 Jesus' opponents charge him with illicitly depicting himself as (equal with) God. However, John persistently pictures those accusers as failing to perceive who Jesus truly is (cf. 5. 36–47; 7. 25–52; 9. 13–41). Thus the accusation represents their ‘misunderstanding’ of Jesus' true nature, rather than John's own view. Cf. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 325–8Google Scholar; Fennema, D., Jesus and God according to John: An Analysis of the Fourth Gospel's Father/Son Christology (Dissertation: Duke University, 1979) 266–9, 272–6.Google Scholar

In 10. 34–36 John argues that Jesus' opponents, in accepting the application of θεόί ( ) to the Israelites (in Ps 82. 6), have forfeited their right to object to Jesus' being called θεός. But this argument is both ad homines and a fortiori, reflecting little if anything of John's own view. Cf. Barrett, , Gospel according to John, 384–6Google Scholar; Brown, , Gospel according to John, 409–10Google Scholar; Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, 391–2Google Scholar; Lindars, , Gospel of John, 373–4Google Scholar; Fennema, , Jesus and God according to John, 273–8.Google Scholar

Finally, in 20. 28, when Thomas addresses the risen Jesus as ‘my God’, he clearly speaks for the evangelist as well. Yet the significance of that confession can be grasped only in the light of all that precedes, including, above all, John's use of θεός in the Prologue. Cf. Barrett, , Gospel according to John, 573Google Scholar; Lindars, , Gospel of John, 614–16Google Scholar; Fennema, , Jesus and God according to John, 287–9.Google Scholar

[43] Another ten examples of the anarthrous θεός are found at John 3. 2, 21; 6. 45; 8. 54; 9. 16, 33; 10. 33; 13. 3; 16. 30; 19. 7.

[44] Since many scholars believe that the Prologue is based on a hymn, one is tempted to attribute this oddity to the exigencies of poetic style - assuming that poetry requires more frequent omission of the article than does the subsequent prose of the Gospel. Or, if the hymn is pre-Johannine, its aberrant use of the anarthrous θεός may simply reflect that writer's style - as distinct from the evangelist's.

Both hypotheses founder on the data. Were one to adopt a scheme, such as Brown's (Gospel according to John, 22), for separating the Prologue's (original) poetry from its (redactional) prose, the former would contain just two examples of the anarthrous θεός (1. 1b, 12), and two of the articular (1. 1a, 2). The prose, however, would contain four examples of the anarthrous θεός (1. 6, 13, 18ab), and none of the articular. Thus, even if one acknowledges the existence of a pre-Johannine hymn which underlies the Prologue, the frequency of the anarthrous θεός in these verses is primarily attributable to the evangelist's own (prose) redaction, rather than to the author (or poetry) of the hymn itself. And that redaction will reflect John's purposeful adaptation of the hymn so as better to convey his own intent.

[45] Brown, Gospel according to John, cxxxv. Other examples of inclusio are John 2. 11/4. 54; 1.28/10.40.

[46] Dana, H. E. and Mantey, J., A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1955) §149. Dana and Mantey were describing anarthrous nouns ‘which the context proves to be definite’. But this principle applies equally well to all anarthrous predicate nouns.Google Scholar

[47] Harner, P. B., ‘Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns; Mark 15:38 and John 1:1’, JBL 92 (1973) 75.Google Scholar

[48] In Harner's words: ‘In John 1:11 think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite’ (ibid. 87).

[49] See below.

[50] ‘der Λόγος wird mil Gott gleichgesetzt: er war Gott’; translation mine.

[51] Bultmann, , Gospel of John, 33.Google Scholar Cf. Barrett, , Gospel according to John, 156Google Scholar; Boismard, , Prologue de Jean, 20Google Scholar; Brown, , Gospel according to John, 5Google Scholar; Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, 141Google Scholar; Lindars, , Gospel of John, 84, 99Google Scholar; Marsh, , Gospel of John, 103Google Scholar; Sanders, , Gospel according to John, 70Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , Gospel according to John, 234.Google Scholar

[52] John 5. 44; 17. 3.

[53] Note also John's refutation of the charge of ditheism in 5. 17–30; see Martyn, J. L., ‘Source Criticism and Religionsgeschichte in the Fourth Gospel’, Perspective 11 (1970) 255–6, 258–9Google Scholar; Fennema, , Jesus and God according to John, 267–9; n. 6 above.Google Scholar

[54] Thus, in the plea of John 17. 3, ‘that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent’, the and (καί) is epexegetical. What follows is explanatory of knowing ‘the only true God’; it is to know Jesus Christ. Cf. 14. 6–7, where Jesus proclaims: ‘No one comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.’

[55] Bultmann, , Gospel of John, 34. The logical alternative is that ό λόγος (ούτος) ήν πρός τόν θεόν confirms the ditheist intent of θεός ήν ό λόγος. But John's monotheism forbids this interpretation.Google Scholar

[56] This equation of όθθεός with όθπατήρ is maintained throughout the Gospel, with the qualified exception of 20. 28 (see n. 42 above). See, e.g. 5. 42–45; 6. 27; 20. 17.

[57] See above.

[58] This paradoxical relationship may be rendered into English by translating the Prologue's eight occurrences of θεός as follows:

1. 1a the Word was with the Deity

1. 1b and the Word was (himself) Deity

1. 2 he was in the beginning with the Deity

1. 6 there appeared one sent from (the) Deity

1.12 he gave them power to become children of (the) Deity

1.13 who … are born of (the) Deity

1. 18a no one has ever seen (the) Deity

1. 18b the only Son, who is (himself) Deity and never apart from the Father - he has made him known

[59] See above, including nn. 26, 29.

[60] Cf. nn. 58 above, 61 below.

[61] ‘God the only Son’: so NAB;NIV; Brown, , Gospel according to John, 4, 17Google Scholar; Mastin, , ‘θεός in John’, 49.Google Scholar Cf. Today's English Version, 4th ed. (1976): ‘the only Son, who is the same as God’Google Scholar; Williams, C. B., The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People: ‘the only Son, Deity Himself’.Google Scholar