[B-Greek] John 1:18 (Was: Another example of a qualitative QEOS)
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Sat Jul 8 14:01:56 EDT 2006
Dear Barry,
See my comments below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>
To: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS
Comments below:
> 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.
BH:
This is all a very interesting and clever justification of what you believe
is the correct rendering, but I think you have missed the real issue here.
Let me approach it this way: how would you render the alternative reading,
MONONGENHS hUIOS? "An only begotten son" is an extremely difficult
rendering in English. "An only son" seems to work, but assumes that there
are other sons, part of a class of "sons," but MONONGENHS, even if
incorrectly translated "only-begotten" still bears a meaning of "absolutely
unique," so that doesn't work either. English usage actually demands the
article here, not because of any rationale concerning the substantizing
nature of the adjective, but because such adjectives qualify the noun
definitely in English ("an only god" simply doesn't work).
RF:
The goal of those who work with Psycholingustics is to find how and in what
form meaning is stored in the brain. It is quite clear that meaning is
stored in the brain as concepts, and each word in a language signals one
(or occasionally two) concepts in the minds of native speakers. Each concept
has a
nucleus that is rather clear but it becomes more fuzzy toward the edges. The
problem for us is that we do not share the presupposition pool of those who
wrote and read the NT in the first century C.E., and concepts can hardly be
defined, they must be known. Therefore, it is dangerous to make sweeping
arguments regarding a
Greek word such as MONOGENHS on the basis of English glosses used to
translate the word.
I will not discard the gloss "only-begotten," as a rendering of MONOGENHS
(there is not enough evidence for that),
even though I believe that the core of the concept signalled by MONOGENHS is
something close to "unique". Translators try to understand as much as
possible of each Greek concept, and on the basis of the context they strive
to find which side of the concept that the author wanted to make visible for
his audience. As for MONOGENHS, in one context "only" is a good English
rendering, in another context "unique" may be used. If hUIOS is the correct
word in John 1:18, what is the meaning of the phrase MONOGENHS hUIOS? Well,
hUIOS is a generic count noun, and therefore the text speaks about one who
belongs to the group (genus) of "sons." Howevere, this one is a special
son, since hUIOS is qualified by MONOGENHS. Since "unique" may be the core
meaning of the concept, I would render the phrase this way:
"a unique son, who is in the bosom of the Father"
If the Greek MSS without article before hUIOS is chosen, I would use "a" and
not "the," since the word hUIOS is not mentioned before in John.
Semantically speaking, this rendering implies that the one mentioned in 1:18
belongs to the the group "the sons of God". Other passages show that Jesus
is the firstborn of these sons. I see no problem with the rendering above.
But as already mentioned, the reading QEOS has a strong backing, and using
QEOS instead of hUIOS gives the rendering
"a/the unique god, who is in the bosom of the Father"
In this case I will either use "a" or "the". The reason for a possible
choice of "the" would be that QEOS with reference to LOGOS is already
mentioned, and therefore "the" would be anaforic. There is no semantic
problem with the rendering "the unique god," only a theological one, since
the verse would show that there is one who is god without qualification and
another who is god with qualification, namely, the unique god.
BH:
The real issue
you are raising concerns the referent for QEOS. Your underlying assumption
appears to be that when referring to the LOGOS/hUIOS, QEOS refers to a class
of beings to which the LOGOS/hUIOS may be conceived as belonging. I am
beginning to wonder if John's carefully chosen MONOGENHS is intended to
belie that assumption, considering that many of John's readers would have
been from a polytheistic background. You might want to study how John
utilizes his key terminology here throughout his gospel. Quite intriguing,
indeed!
RF:
I have no such underlying assumption, as you say I have, in my linguistic
analysis. I simply try to learn from the text what the realtionship between
LOGOS and the mentioned hO QEOS is. And honestly speaking, as a linguist I
find 1:18 to be very clear. The text speaks of two individuals who have a
relationship, one is the Father, who is previously called "the God" (the
article in 1:1 is not anaforic), and the other is called "a unique god".
Linguistically speaking "the Father" is a singular noun and QEOS is a
generic count noun. The word MONOGENHS is a simple word and not an
esotereic one, and one cannot insist that it has such a restricted meaning
that the simple construction of an adjective that qualifies the following
noun is not valid.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Adjunct Faculty & IT Support
The Center for Urban Theological Studies
http://www.cuts.edu
Classics Instructor, The American Academy
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list