[B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Sat Jul 8 19:25:56 EDT 2006
@Rolf: See below:
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no>
> 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.
Response: Well that would be helpful as well, I was making this point because most people including myself are used to God here being capitlized, I would imagine that if someone wanted to translate it with a lower case in an effort to make it qualitative there would have to be some sort of explanation. I think it would be weird at first.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
Response: I also think it is important that we look at the imperfect EIMI in verse 1. I remember you disagreeing with the evangelical interpretation in your book but I have not read your book in a number of years and cannot remember your response so if you have already addressed this I apologize. But as you know the typical view is that since this EIMI is imperfect this illustrates that the LOGOS was with the Father from eternalty, this relationship would help explain in what since this LOGOS is MONOGENHS. In otherwords, how is this LOGOS unique? He is unique with respect to his existance from eternalty along with his relationshp with the Father. I hope that was not too theological, kind of hard not to go there in dealing with this particular text. Another issue that I don't know if you addressed already is EIMI vs GINOMAI, it appears that Jn is contrasting everything that was created to the LOGOS which 'was already.'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rolf:> 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).
Response: Not to play devil's advocate but how do you feel about Gal 3:9? TWi PISTWi ABRAAM is it not possible to take this to be Abraham, the one who believed?
---------------------------------------------------------
Rolf:> 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."
Response: I see what you are saying, I think the argument that takes MONOGENHS as a substantive stems from verse 14. I believe those who take MONOGENHS as a substantive in verse 18 also take it that way in verse 14 and they argue that it sort of carries over (i.e. John sets the precedence in verse 14 so therefore it seems normal that he keeps it a substantive in verse 18
) Followed by other examples such as Galatians 3:9, I can see where many are coming from with this line of reasoning. Don't know if I agree but I can see it's merit.
--------------------------------------
>
> 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
Response: But if we are linking this verse back to verse 1, and we are taken the EIMI verb here to represent hO LOGOS existing from eternalty then this being is not apart of a class of sons or gods but unique with regard to his relationship with hO PATER.
--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list