[B-Greek] John 1:18

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Nov 6 05:00:38 EST 2009


On Nov 6, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:

>
> (I am resending my last post [with a modification] as it went to the  
> list with the text interpersed with some codes.)
>
>
>
>>> LJ: Is not GENHS in MONOGENHS cognate with GENNAW (used in v.  
>>> 1:13).>> Why cannot it mean "only-begotton"?
>
>> Only insofar as GENNAW "generate/beget" derives from the root GEN->  
>> "come-to-be" or "kind/kindred"> -GENHS derives directly from GEN-
>
>> Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University  
>> (Retired)
>
>
> LJ: Doesn't the expression hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS indicate  
> a filial-son relationship between MONOGENHS QEOS and PATROS (v. 18)?

Probably. It certainly indicates an intimate relationship. Cf. Lk 16:23.

> Further, on your understanding of MONOGENHS, how would you translate  
> MONOGENHS in MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS (v. 14)? Note again the  
> juxtaposition of this word with PATROS.

I think all translations are awkward (I think Yancy's comment on what  
translators attempt to do and what the "more honest" ones do in  
footnotes is right on target). For John 1:18 I think the preferable  
strategy is to do what NET does; its version: "The only one, himself  
God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God  
known." Then NET has a very nice( IMHO) explanatory note. I also think  
that Eugene Peterson's "Message" version does pretty well with  
MONOGENHS understood in what I think is the better sense, but some  
don't think such paraphrase is appropriate: "This one-of-a-kind God- 
Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him  
plain as day." You'll note that Peterson ties up MONOGENHS QEOS with  
the LOGOS QEOS of verse 1, as Iver suggested in his message of  
November 5, 2009 1:15:08 AM EST.
>
> The context provides further support for MONOGENHS as "only- 
> begotton": In v. 12 we are told that to those who believed in him he  
> gave the power to become the "children of God"--in a spiritual  
> sense, of course, as everyone would agree. Doesn't this imply that  
> there was a time when Jesus was the only one born of God in a  
> spiritual sense? Wouldn't it then provide the context for  
> understanding MONOGENHS as "only-begotton" in vv. 14 and 18?

You are pushing the inquiry off into questions that are theological  
and exegetical beyond elucidating the Greek text. I've tried to  
clarify my own thinking abut MONOGENHS as "unique" and how it works; I  
am not particularly disturbed that some prefer to underscore the  
genetic metaphor in conveying the sense of this verse into a target  
language. What should be understood in all this endeavor to "get it  
exactly right" is that we are dealing with a Greek text that is by no  
means uniformly attested in the MSS and that requires, if we are  
honest about it, some "best-guess" judgments about exactly what the  
text is and exactly what the text means.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list