[B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS
Barry
nebarry at verizon.net
Sat Jul 8 19:42:12 EDT 2006
> 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.
Very interesting, but you are surely aware that a quite a few scholars
reject the "mental lexicon" theory, at least in the form that you present it
here. I am not making assumptions based on the English glosses used to
interpret the word, but suggesting that contextually it implies "absolutely
unique" in a sense that the semantic range of MONOS does not cover. The
EEV's, including the KJV, essentially followed Jerome's rendering
*unigenitus* and the theories of the church fathers who saw the word as
related to GENNAW rather than GENOS. Speaking of linguistics, it is modern
linguistics which informs the lexicographer concerning the derivation and
probable usage of 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:
Core concept? How quaint. I find the whole concept of core concept rather
suspicious. There is no such thing as the "core meaning" of the word, only
usages which are more or less common.
My favorite example. If you ask an English speaker the meaning of run,
chances are she'll respond with the most common usage, something like "move
feet quickly to get from point a to point b." But...
"The captain can run the ship with a run her stocking while the crewmembers
run a race on the run on deck 9."
What is the core meaning of "run?" In my own days of studying linguistics,
I remember research which indicated that in such examples, native speakers
would often not even consider the word the same word, such as the English
teacher who insisted that they were actually homographs, even though
linguistically it was proven that they were obviously the same word...
(True homographs, of course, are words which are of different etymology, but
end up being spelled the same at some point in their diachronic
development).
> "a unique son, who is in the bosom of the Father"
The question is this, and may only be answered contextually: Is the Son one
of many sons, or is he in class by himself? I am suggesting that MONOGENHS
is employed to suggest that he is in class by himself. If it weren't for
the theological baggage behind "only begotten," I would agree that it would
be a good translation, since it does imply that absolute uniqueness, but I
doubt that John had "eternal generation" directly in mind when he used the
word.
> 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
It is rather simplistic to assume that the lack of the Greek article implies
the indefinite article in English, don't you think? As for "other
passages," we were concerned originally with whether or not the translation
"and the Word was God" was linguistically possible. I believe that I have
demonstrated that it is.
> "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.
John's interplay of terminology and his contextual nuancing is quite
interesting, indeed, and I believe leads in quite a different direction from
what you are implying here.
> 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.
Essentially, your theory rests on the idea that John is using his terms
equivocally, and not consistently. I find that contrary to both the normal
way in which writers use their terminology, as well as in violation of the
terminology as John develops it thematically throughout the gospel. Here
is an example to chew on. I find this statement in a letter:
"John is president of the school and Rolf is president of the school..."
(You may thank me later for your promotion).
Now, I say to myself, "Self, there's a problem here. The school can have
only on president at a time. Therefore, since John is the first named, the
author must be using 'president' the second time in the sense of 'assistant
president' or some other metaphorical use."
Logical, huh? But then a few paragraphs later I read that they are actually
sharing the office of president. John is retiring in a month, and Rolf has
just been promoted, and they are sharing the office for that time. Both are
literally president, one office that is temporarily being shared.
Now, that analogy is not one of the famous "trinity" analogies, but simply
to demonstrate the fallacy I believe to be involved in your analysis.
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
And my site:
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list