[B-Greek] John 1:18 (Was: Another example of a qualitative QEOS)
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Sun Jul 9 03:48:13 EDT 2006
Dear Barry,
See my comments below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>
To: "'Rolf Furuli'" <furuli at online.no>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] John 1:18 (Was: Another example of a qualitative
QEOS)
snip
BH:
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.
BH:
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.
RF:
Your claim that MONOGENHS in John 1:18 means "absolutely unique,"
contrasting it with MONOS, indicates that you have adopted the technique of
Athanasius, who felt free to change the meaning of words on the basis of
whom they referred to. He wrote (Discourse II, The Nicene and Ante-Nicene
Fathers, second series IV:349)
"For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather the Nature draws to Itself
those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to essences, but
essences are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when the essence is a
work or creature, then the words "He made" and "He became" and "He created"
are used of it properly. But when the essence is an Offspring and Son, then
"He made" and "He became" and "He created" no longer properly belong to it,
nor designate a work; but "He made" we use without question for "He begat".
The word MONOGENHS occurs nine times in the NT. In Luke 7:12; 8:42; 8:38
the word seems to refer to the only child of someone, and in Hebrews 11:17
the word may signal some kind of uniqueness, since Abraham had other sons
beside Isaac. The LXX use is quite similar. I agree that the context, as
well as the cotext, should be considered in connection with interpretation
and translation. But I disagree with Athanasius; it is very dangerous to
change or restrict the the meaning of a word on the basis of our
understanding of the cotext (read: theology). This may entail circular
reasoning: One decides what is the relationship between Jesus and his
father, and on this basis the words about Jesus is interpreted. I would go
the other way by taking the words in their normal sense, and on this basis
learn what is the relationship between Jesus and his father.
It is clear that the class "gods" existed in the minds of those who wrote
the NT books (1 Cor 8:5). The count noun QEOS is in the NT a part of this
class. The only exception of QEOS being a part of the class "gods" is when
it refers to the creator and is used as a singular noun. In 1:18 the phrase
MONOGENHS QEOS is naturally taken as a count noun beloning to the class of
"gods" because it is modified by an adjective and because the referent is
distinguished from and separated from "the father," who is the creator. But
you use the ad hoc argument that MONOGENHS has such a restricted meaning
that MONOGENHS QEOS must be "in a class by himself". My question is: can you
on a lexical/linguistic basis justify your claim that MONOGENHS means
"absolutely unique" with the effect that the referent cannot be a member of
the class "gods"?
BH:
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.
RF:
I agree that the lack of article before a noun does not necessarily make it
indefinite. However, in John 1:1 the lack of article before QEOS is
significant because of the contrast it creates between hO QEOS and QEOS.
snip
> 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.
BH:
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.
RF: No, I do not think that John used his terms with different meanings; I
think that his terms are consistent througout his book. I also think that
John used his terms in the same way as Luke did, and that he used MONOGENHS
as Luke did. But you claim that John used MONOGENHS differently from Luke,
and the onus of proof rests on you.
BH:
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.
There is a basic weakness in your example, because it describes a natural
situation, but it is supposed to illustrate a situation that is paradoxical
or mystic (no negative sense intended). I do not demand that God should be
fully understood, nor do I a priori reject a description of God that is
paradoxical. But if I were to accept a paradoxical explanation, I would
demand that John and others expressed the paradox in clear and unambiguous
terms. In order to illustrate: In John 1:1 LOGOS is said to be PROS TON QEON
and in 1:18 MONOGENHS QEOS is said to be EIS TON KOLPPON TOU PATROS.
Elementary linguistics and simple semantic logic tells us that John speaks
of two different individuals who are distinct and separated from one
another. If you shall succeed in overturning that, you must show that John
explicitly says so. But he does not do that.
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
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list