[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