[B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John 1:18-revised
Tom Moore
tom at katabiblon.com
Wed Nov 4 18:23:55 EST 2009
For some adjectives, the meaning does change. Smyth (1172) says this occurs specifically with "adjectives of place":
Attributive
ARKON -- TO AKRON OROS = the lofty mountain
MESH -- hH MESH AGORA = the central market
ESCATH -- hH ESCATH NHSOS = the farthest island
Predicative
ARKON -- AKRON TO OROS = the top of the mountain
MESH -- MESH hH AGORA = the center of the market
ESCATH -- ESCATH hH NHSOS = the verge of the island
MONOGENHS is not an adjective of place. However, could it still be possible, given the author has already established context in John 1:14 with "MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS", that MONOGENHS (pred.) QEOS means God's only begotten?
Regards,
Tom Moore
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John 1:18-revised
> Sent: Nov 04 '09 22:43
>
> Whether it is predicate or attributive, with or without the article, is
> irrelevant to the point I was making, which is, what difference in
> meaning or anything else is there if we consider MONOGENHS
> an adjective or a noun in apposition?
>
> Mark L
>
>
> FWSFOROS MARKOS
>
> --- On WED, 11/4/09, TOM MOORE _<TOM at KATABIBLON.COM>_ wrote:
>
> From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John
> 1:18-revised
> To: "Blue Meeksbay" <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>, "Mark Lightman"
> <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 3:28 PM
>
>
> I don't think we can say that MONOGENHS is not in the predicate position,
> can we?
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the presence of an article somewhere
> in the expression MONOGENHS QEOS would fix MONOGENHS as either attributive
> or predicative, but in the absence of the article, it can be either.
>
> MONOGENHS in the variant "hO MONOGENHS hUIOS" is attributive.
> MONOGENHS in "MONOGENHS hO QEOS" would be predicative.
> MONOGENHS in "MONOGENHS QEOS" is ambiguous.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Moore
>
>
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Blue Meeksbay <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bluemeeksbay@yahoo.com]
> bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in
> John 1:18-revised
> > Sent: Nov 04 '09 20:18
> >
> > Yes, that is a good point. Thank you. I do not pretend to be an expert
> Greek scholar, so please tell me if I am wrong, but the difference seems to
> be that in John 1:18, MONOGENHS is not in the predicate position as your
> example shows. If hO BASILEUS hO AGAQOS was written hO AGAQOS BASILEUS, I
> think the normal understanding would be "the good king" and not "the good
> one, who is king." However, if it was written as you have it, hO BASILEUS
> hO AGAQOS, with the definite article before BASILEUS and before the
> adjective, I believe it could then be understood as "the king, the good
> one" Therefore, if John 1:18 read hO QEOS hO MONOGENHS one could translate
> it as God, the One and Only, or God, the Only Begotten," depending on how
> you understand MONOGENHS, but with it as hO MONOGENHS QEOS, it seems it
> should be understood as a simple adjective. (Of course, if we substitute
> the variant UIOS I do not think anyone would have a problem seeing it as a
> simple
> > adjective modifying UIOS).
> >
> > If we transfer that phrase into a similar verse structure, let us
> pretend we have hO BASILEUS hO AGAQOS hO WN EIS TON OIKON AUTOU. It seems
> that it should be translated as the “the good king who is in his
> house,” or “the king, the good one who is in his house.” But if we
> had hO AGAQOS BASILEUS hO WN EIS TON OIKON AUTOU, it seems the only way
> it could be translated is “the good king who is in his house.” It seems
> it would stretch the parameters of grammar to say it should be understood
> as “the good one, who is king in his house,” although, I guess it might
> be possible, but it does not seem it would be the normal understanding.
> >
> > Yours Truly,
> >
> > B.Harris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mark Lightman <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lightmanmark@yahoo.com]
> lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
> > To: Eddie Mishoe <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=edmishoe@yahoo.com]
> edmishoe at yahoo.com>; Blue Meeksbay <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bluemeeksbay@yahoo.com]
> bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: [LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org]
> b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 10:59:05 AM
> > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in
> John 1:18-revised
> >
> >
> > B. Harris wrote:
> >
> > <Anyway, it still seems a bit artificial to turn QEOS
> > into apposition with MONOGENHS. It seems that
> > the structure of the sentence would still demand MONOGENHS
> > to be an adjective modifying QEOS. Am I still missing something?>
> >
> > Are not all attributive adjectives really nouns in apposition?
> > hO BASILEUS hO AGAQOS can always be understood as
> > "the king, the good one." If fact, whether hO BASILEUS
> > is really a noun ("the king") or an adjective ("the royal one")
> > or a verb ("the one who rules") depends more on your
> > starting point than on anything in the Greek text. Same,
> > I think, with MONOGENHS.
> >
> > Mark L
> >
> >
> > FWSFOROS MARKOS
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Blue Meeksbay <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bluemeeksbay@yahoo.com]
> bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >From: Blue Meeksbay <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bluemeeksbay@yahoo.com]
> bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in
> John 1:18-revised
> > >To: "Eddie Mishoe" <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=edmishoe@yahoo.com]
> edmishoe at yahoo.com>
> > >Cc: [LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org]
> b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > >Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 8:17 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >It seems what Dr. Wallace is saying, is that the reason for turning hO
> WN into a relative clause connected with God, “who is God,” or “the
> one being God,” are the examples in Rev.1:4,8;4:8; 11:16; 17:5. But those
> verses seem to support the idea that QEOS should not be in apposition. For
> example, the one example in Rev. 4:8 where the relative clause refers back
> to Lord God Almighty, “God” and “Almighty” are not anarthrous like
> the word “God” in John 1:18. Perhaps, if QEOS was not anarthrous hO WN
> could refer back to God, but since it is anarthrous it seems hO WN is
> completed by the following prepositional phrase. This seems to be the
> normal pattern followed by John. It seems in all cases when John introduces
> a relative clause by the root hO WN and a prepositional phrase is present,
> the clause is completed by the prepositional phrase (Jn.3:13, 6:46, 9:40,
> 11:31). Thus it seems the relative clause in Jn. 1:18 is completed by the
> > >prepositional phrase, “who is in the bosom of the Father,” and
> should not be thought to refer back to QEOS – “who is God.”
> > >This same structure also seems to be used by other writers (II cor.
> 11:31 col. 4:11 I thess 2:14). It seems that in the New Testament hO WN of
> the relative clause always is connected to the prepositional phrase when a
> prepositional phrase is present. Perhaps, the one exception would be Rom.
> 7:13, which could read “the law, which is of sin in my members.”
> > >As for the examples of substantive adjectives followed by a noun, it
> seems to me, unless I am not seeing something, the only one that could
> clearly apply to John 1:18 would be Gal. 3:9. In that case it seems one
> could translated John 1:18 as “the one and only, God” or “the Only
> Begotten, God,” depending on your understanding of monogenes, and still
> keep the relative clause with the prepositional phrase, but it still seems
> the simpler translation would to view it as a simple adjective. I wonder if
> the variant “Son” was the accepted reading, those who believe God is in
> apposition to MONOGENES would believe Son should be in apposition to
> MONOGENHS from the same grammatical point of view?
> > >Anyway, it still seems a bit artificial to turn QEOS into apposition
> with MONOGENHS. It seems that the structure of the sentence would still
> demand MONOGENHS to be an adjective modifying QEOS. Am I still missing
> something? Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.
> > >Sincerely,
> > >B. Harris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >From: Eddie Mishoe <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=edmishoe@yahoo.com]
> edmishoe at yahoo.com>
> > >To: [LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org]
> b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; Blue Meeksbay <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bluemeeksbay@yahoo.com]
> bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
> > >Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 7:43:30 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in
> John 1:18-revised
> > >
> > >
> > >B. Harris:
> > >
> > >This may be of help to you on this issue. It is the translator's note
> in the NET Bible at this passage. Dr. Wallace, the author of this note, has
> written an article on this subject also where he interacts more with Dr.
> Ehrman's position. In short, the answer to your main question is, "Yes,
> QEOS stands in apposition to MONGENHS.
> > >
> > >tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo",
> “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh"
> Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter
> would have differentiated the readings in the mss , since both words would
> have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there
> are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they
> read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss , especially the later ones
> (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75
> א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous
> μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular
> θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous
> θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The
> external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός.
> Internally, although
> > >υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much
> more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other
> reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found
> υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes
> would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since
> μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title
> (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more
> difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense
> to see the word θεόςas in apposition to μονογενής, and the
> participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect
> three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The
> Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible
> and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately
> by a noun that agrees in
> > >gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is
> an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun
> of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as
> Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since
> it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might
> well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective
> substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already
> moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke
> 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881
> s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a
> substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete
> concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern
> translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several
> things should be noted:
> > >μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,”
> “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός
> is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in
> 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the
> Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.”
> Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even
> more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together
> leads to the translation given in the text.
> > >
> > >
> > >Anything discussed further on this may get into theology rather than
> syntax.
> > >
> > >Eddie Mishoe
> > >Pastor
> > >
> > >--- On Tue, 11/3/09, Blue Meeksbay <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bluemeeksbay@yahoo.com]
> bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>From: Blue Meeksbay <[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bluemeeksbay@yahoo.com]
> bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
> > >>Subject: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in
> John 1:18-revised
> > >>To: [LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org]
> b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > >>Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 5:24 PM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>I have noticed some believe QEOS should be seen in apposition to
> MONOGENHS in John 1:18. This seems to me to be an unusual grammatical
> construction.
> > >>If QEOS was to be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in this verse,
> would not it have normally been used in a relative clause or, perhaps, have
> been preceded by a pronoun, as “Saviour” is preceded by “our,” in
> “God our Saviour” in Jude 1:25? Then John 1:18 would read “the One
> and Only, our God,” or the "Only Begotten, our God," depending on one's
> understanding. Or if MONOGENHS is supposed to be viewed as a substantive,
> would not it have been normal to write QEOS with the definite article as is
> commonly done in the LXX (e.g. Lord God – KURIOSO QEOS)? If John wants
> us to view QEOS in apposition to MONOGENHS, it seems he is using an unusual
> construction. It seems the simpler translation would be to understand
> MONOGENHS as an adjective modifying “QEOS,” so that it would read, "the
> One and Only God," or the "Only Begotten God," according to one's
> preference. Are there any thoughts as to this issue, or are there any
> other examples
> > >>by any other writers who use a construction like this, but in a verse
> with less ambiguity?
> > >>Yours Truly,
> > >>B. Harris
> > >>P.S. Please excuse my earlier email. I did not fully understand the
> protocols. I hope this one is done correctly.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>---
> > >>B-Greek home page: [LINK: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek]
> http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> > >>B-Greek mailing list
> > >>[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org]
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > >>[LINK: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek]
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---
> > >B-Greek home page: [LINK: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek]
> http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> > >B-Greek mailing list
> > >[LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org]
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > >[LINK: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek]
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > B-Greek home page: [LINK: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek]
> http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> > B-Greek mailing list
> > [LINK:
> http://us.mc636.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org]
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > [LINK: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek]
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> >
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list