[B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John 1:18-revised

John Sanders john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 19:21:02 EST 2009


Tom Moore wrote:
"MONOGENHS (pred.) QEOS means God's only begotten?"

MONOGENHS and QEOS are in the same case.  Using the same sense and
terminology you used, it would need be, I think, "only begotten is God"
using the same word order as Greek.  For my part, I would prefer the
attributive position becasue of the context.

John Sanders
Suzhou, China

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com> wrote:

> 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
> >  >
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>



-- 
John Sanders
Suzhou, China



More information about the B-Greek mailing list