[B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Sat Jul 8 03:51:35 EDT 2006


Dear Kelton,

I agree that footnotes are important in cases such as John 1:1. But because 
I think a Bible translation should be made in a way as to leave as much as 
possible of the interpretation to the readers, I would appreciate footnotes 
that show the translation possibilities and the reasons for the 
translators´choices rather than exegetical comments. Footnotes that refer to 
parallel passages and passages that may throw light on the translation 
choice would also be helpful.

A footnote of John 1:1c should naturally refer to 1:18. Here we have a text 
that certainly throws light on the issue we are discussing, namely:

MONOGENHS QEOS hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS

There is a textcritical question in connection with MONOGENHS QEOS, but 
these words are found in P66 and P75 and have a rather strong backing.

In this verse we find hO PATHR, which is a singular noun refering to hO 
QEOS. There is a relationship between hO PATHR and MONOGENHS QEOS similar to 
the relationship expressed by PROS  in 1:1b: a/the unique/onlybegotten god 
is "at the father´s side/in the father´s bosom" In this verse the meaning of 
the word QEOS can be easier to understand because of the preceding adjective 
MONOGENHS. M. J. Harris "Jesus as God: The New Testament use of Theos in 
Reference to Jesus" (1992) refers to seven translations and and nine 
commentators who take MONOGENHS as a substantivized adjective (giving the 
rendering "God, the only Son" or something similar). He refers to one Bible 
translation and sixteen commentators who take MONOGENHS as an adjective that 
qualifies QEOS (giving the rendering a/the onlybegotten/unique God" or 
something similar), and he refers to two translations and fifteen 
commentators who in different ways avoid using MONOGENHS as an adjective 
qualifying QEOS, (giving the rendering "the only One, who is the same as 
God" or something similar).

In my view the case is very clear. As far as I know, in every instance in 
the NT where an adjective immediately precedes a noun in the same gender, 
number, and case, it qualifies that noun. To take MONOGENHS as a 
substantivized adjective, or in other ways avoid its qualifying force in the 
translation of the verse is theologically and not linguistically motivated. 
F. Büchsel (TDNT 4, p 740, n.14 writes that MONOGENHS QEOS 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 (John), who is 
distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression."

On the background of the use of adjectives that precedes nouns in the NT, in 
1:18 we have a passage that can help us decide the meaning of the word QEOS 
in 1:1c. The adjective MONOGENHS can hardly qualify a quality, but it 
naturally qualifies a generic count noun. Thus "a unique/onlybegotten 
god"/"the unique/onlybegotten god" justifies the rendering "a god" in 1:1c. 
A footnote, or an appendix discussing 1:1c with some of this would be very 
fine.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kgraham0938 at comcast.net>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS

snip

But to address your point, I could go along with a lower case 'g' if there 
was a footnote like the NET bible saying that this was a qualitative use of 
QEOS or some other note that explains what the translator means and the 
reason behind the translation.

snip

> Kelton Graham
> KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
> ---






More information about the B-Greek mailing list