[B-Greek] John 1:18 (Was: Another example of a qualitative QEOS)

Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Sun Jul 9 07:53:16 EDT 2006


> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]
> On Behalf Of Rolf Furuli
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 3:48 AM
> To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:18 (Was: Another example of a qualitative
QEOS)


> 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)

Well, I think Athanasius might have been onto something here.  When I use
the term "president" to refer the US head of state, and when I use
"president" to refer to the president of a school, do the two usages mean
the same thing?  Linguistically speaking (!), this is part of how the
semantic range of words gets pushed and pulled, and is one of the arguments
against the mental lexicon theory.

 
> "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".

As is often the case with the ancients when they try to do linguistics, the
methodology rots -- this is way too Platonistic for me, but if you cut the
metaphysics, and do a little translation work, his approach does sound a lot
like modern lexicography -- look at the usage of the word in context,
including the referent, properly to decode the writer's intended meaning.  I
think you'll agree that when QEOS is used to refer to the One God, the
meaning is different than when it used to refer to Zeus or
Baal-Hashamayim...

Now, that gets us squarely back to the prologue of John and John's
deliberate and nearly poetic juxtaposition/interplay of terms.

 
> 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.

Well, it strikes me that you are still operating here on the basis of your
mental lexicon theory.  In point of fact, it is both context and co-text
which determines what an author intends to communicate.  Just as an example,
if I read in Euripides (hypothetically):

QEOS ALHQINOS EN TOIS OURANOIS ESTIN...

I know that for him QEOS ALHQINOS means something quite different than it
would for a biblical author, different worldviews and all that.  He is
simply not saying the same thing.

Of course, this discussion reveals how slippery such terms as "meaning" are,
and why there is so much discussion on the subject.

 
> 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"?

Well, now we are getting into areas of hermeneutics that may require our
hHGEMWN AGAPHTOS to curtail the discussion.  In 1 Cor 8:5, Paul goes on to
say that for him and his readers, no other god exists, there is only the
true God.  The idea that there is a class of beings, either actual or
hypothetical, of which John includes the referents in his prologue, appears
to be completely foreign to the context.  When I say "Our president just
made a trip to Afghanistan to visit the banana stand," is the possibility
that there is a class of "beings" called presidents (college presidents,
club presidents, etc.) even relevant?

 
>  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.

It makes a distinction, surely, but I am not sure "contrast" is the best
word to describe what John is doing.

 
> 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.

Well, the lexicons tend to agree with me, you might have noticed.  This is
getting into reading strategy.  One of the things that an educated reader
needs to realize is that various authors use terminology in ways which are
appropriate to their context and purpose.  Modern authors tend to be a bit
more careful their definition of terminology, and leave us in less doubt,
though not always.  Both Karl Marx and Karl Barth might use "die Krisis" in
significant contexts, but do they really mean the same thing?

 
> 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.


[RF]
 
> 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.

In other words, you want impose your standard of proof on the text, rather
than developing a reading strategy emic to it.  I disagree: I think it's
crucial to understand that the very ambiguities you don't like are essential
to John's purpose in writing.

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