[B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John1:18-revised

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Fri Nov 6 05:13:14 EST 2009


Dear Yancy,

See my comments below.


>I note that the Hebrew word sometimes translated 
>É ÉÕÉÀÉÕɡɈÉÀÐV MONOGENHS in Hebrew, ÈÁÈ“, 
>YACHID, presents difficulties for the LXX. For 
>example, Judges 11:34, the case of Jephthah's 
>ill-fated daughter. In the LXX she is said to be 
>ɻɸ? Éø?É-ɉ É ÉÕÉÀÉÕɡɈÉÀ?V Éø?É-? 
>?ɡɸ¼É‰É-?, ɻɸ? ÉÕ?É» ?É-É-É«ÉÀ Éø?É-? ¼ÉŠ?ÉÀ 
>Éø?É-?V É"??V ? ɐÉ"É¡?É-ɉɦ, KAI AUTH 
>MONOGENHS AUTWi AGAPHTH, KAI OUK ESTIN AUTWi 
>PLHN AUTHS hUIOS H QUGATHR.
>It is right to wonder to what extent the author 
>of GJohn 1 was thinking with Hebrew or 
>Syriac-Aramaic, or whether the Greek text 
>represents an over-literal translation of a 
>Semitic original text. Matthew Black gives a nod 
>to Burney's elegant solution to the problem of 
>this text (Aramaic Approach, 11). He suggests 
>that an Aramaic YeCHiDh 'eLaHa "the only 
>begotten of God" was translated MONOGENHS QEOS. 
>And, of course, that could also be "only 
>begotten, beloved one" of God this would make a 
>good link with the bit about being in the KOLPON 
>of the Father.
>
>GJohn 1:18 is not only text that gives a 
>defective or confusing sense in Greek because of 
>interference from Semitic background. But I am 
>intrigued by one of Rolf's comments.
>
>Rolf said:
>
>Snip
>I would like to stress that my words above are 
>strictly linguistic and not theological. As 
>translation theory requires, I reject any 
>mystical element, and take the constructions of
>1:1 and 1:18 in the simple and normal linguistic 
>way that is so typical for John. 
>Snip
>
>YWS: I have my doubts about a "strictly 
>linguistic" and non theological reading of a 
>highly theological and somewhat mystical 
>text--the Gospel of John. And within this 
>Gospel, the prologue!

John's mother tongue evidently was Hebrew (or 
less likely, Aramaic-but only 13% of the Dead 
Seas Scrolls are written in Aramaic), but he 
wrote in Greek. And because John 1:18 is no 
quote, but John's own words, we need not consider 
any possible Semitic original. But if we tried, 
such an original in no way need to be obscure, 
and to illustrate this I transcribe the Syriac 
Peshitta text:  YIXIDOYO  )ALOHO, The first word 
is an adjective with the meaning "only," 
"only-begotten," "unique," and the second is a 
substantive with the meaning "god". Both words 
are masculine, singular and in the emphatic 
(determined) state. The construction is 
unambiguous and can only be translated as "a/the 
only-begotten god" (or, "only" or "unique" 
instead of "only-begotten"). Syriac neither has a 
definite nor an indefinite article, but 
definiteness/indefiniteness can be made by the 
help of demonstratives. John 1:1 in the Peshitta 
should therefore be translated as "and the word 
was a god." Sahidic Coptic has an indefinite 
article, and it also has "a god".  BTW, Black's 
retro-translation from Greek to Aramaic is pure 
speculation!


>
>Perhaps we should also remember that GJohn is a 
>highly polemical text in which disciples are 
>also being schooled in crafting, within first 
>century Judasims, non-standard messages about 
>Jesus in a highly volatile social situation. 
>Here in John 1:18 "mistranslation" may be a 
>stealthy way to hedge the statement. In other 
>words, GJohn may be using a cleverness of 
>expression common in Greco-Roman rhetoric, 
>figured expression with built in plausible 
>deniability called EMFASIS, used frequently in 
>moments in which the speaker must speak in a 
>stealthy way. This way of constantly, carefully 
>parsing one's words to simultaneously hide and 
>reveal meaning was a characteristic of Jesus and 
>is a characteristic of oppressed peoples in 
>general, as seen in James Scott, Domination and 
>the Arts of Resistance. Scott's work is used to 
>great effect by Warren Carter in John and 
>Empire: Initial Explorations.
>
>There is a good case to be made for EMFASIS in 
>John 1:18, so I wonder what the utility of a 
>straightforward linguistic, non-theological 
>readings would be or whether it is even possible 
>when discussing a theological text.

Mysticism, which is the same as metaphysics, is 
unscientific and is barred from science. This 
means that a scientific approach to the Greek 
text and to the translation of the Greek text 
must shun mysticism. We have the text, and we 
have Greek lexical semantics, grammar and syntax, 
and we should stick to that. A translator will of 
course use extra-linguistic tools, he or she will 
look at the history and culture of the people to 
whom a text is written, and a knowledge of 
Psycho-linguistics and Semiotics etc. will be an 
advantage. But all this is secondary, what really 
counts is the text analyzed in a scientific 
linguistic way.

As a linguist who has taught languages for many 
years, I am perfectly aware that language may be 
ambiguous. So we cannot just say: "Use a 
scientific linguistic approach, and voila, the 
only possible understanding of a text will 
emerge." However, in many instances we can do 
just that, and I can hardly think of a more clear 
and easy text to understand and translate than 
John 1:18, if we get rid of mysticism and 
theology!  (One reservation is of course textual 
criticism.) The best English way to translate 
MONOGENHS can be discussed. But from a 
*linguistic, non-theological* point of view, the 
relationship between MONOGENHS AND THEOS  is 
perfectly clear, the substantive is modified by 
the adjective, exactly as in Syriac. (In my 
Syriac class we have recently read John 1:1 in 
Syriac and Greek, and no student had any problems 
at all with vv. 1 and 18- not even the two 
students who are lecturers at a theological 
seminary.)

The problem that causes all this discussion, is 
that some people are not satisfied with the plain 
meaning a a text, because it seems to contradict 
their theological view. So they find all kinds of 
strange arguments, bordering on special pleading, 
in order to circumvent the plain meaning of the 
text. In other texts with similar constructions, 
no one would dream of using these strange 
arguments.

>
>Further, it seems that a linguistic reading 
>would simply be a reading that lists possible 
>ways of understanding the code of the text, 
>given the fact that the text might have 
>differing meanings in differing contexts. How 
>would a linguistic reading adjudicate the most 
>likely reading (that is, argue for probability) 
>without regard to pragmatics or social context, 
>which includes theological presuppositions?
>
>Yancy



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


More information about the B-Greek mailing list