[B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John 1:18-revised
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Nov 4 19:30:40 EST 2009
On Nov 4, 2009, at 7:21 PM, John Sanders wrote:
> 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.
Except that MONOGENHS does not mean "only-begotten" but rater "one of
a kind," "unique."
Carl W. Conrad
> 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
> ---
> 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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list