[B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John1:18-revised
Blue Meeksbay
bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 6 11:37:41 EST 2009
Dear Rolf Furuli:
Thank you for your objective and excellent analysis.
You wrote:
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.
_____________________
Can this same approach be carried over to etymology? It seems an awful lot of interpretive theology has been brought into deciphering the meaning of MONOGENHS. It seems a minor and obscure meaning of the word has been substituted for the primary and common meaning of the word, and all because of a perceived theological meaning. Now it must be admitted that “monogenes” was used sometimes in ancient Greek to refer to “unique” without the sense of begetting. For instance, in the writing of Paramenides c. 500 B.C., it is used this way. Indeed, TDNT states the following:
“But the word can also be used more generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of “unique,” “unparalleled,” “incomparable…”[1]
However, it should be noted, again, that such a usage is a minority usage. In the vast majority of the cases “genes” carried the sense of “derivation,” or being “born.”
It seems everyone changes which word the stem GENHS should be related to depending on which theological position they want to affirm. Some relate it to GENOS, some to GENNAW, but the fact remains that the stem GENHS in and of itself was used repeatedly with some connotation of “derivation,” or being “born.” A quick analysis of Liddell and Scott showed the stem, GENHS occurs 168 times in various words. Of the 168 occurrences, 108 times it is used with the sense of “derivation” or “born.” However, only 22 times is it used with the sense of “class” or “kind.” Of the remaining uses, 28 times the definition is unavailable and the other 10 times miscellaneous meanings are assigned to the word.[2]
Even in the second through fourth centuries, when theological debate swirled about, the early Christian writers, maintained the understanding of MONOGENHS as “only born,” or “only begotten,” even though with the mass of Gnostic speculations of the second century, and with the debate with Arianism in the fourth, the church maintained the meaning of “only begotten,” when it might have been to their advantage to substitute the meaning of “one of a kind,” or “one and only.”
If the word carried no sense of derivation, why then, with the Gnostic speculations of “emanations,” and the assertions by Arius that the Son was a created being derived from the Father, did not the church do away with the idea of MONOGENHS as “only begotten,” and substitute the idea of “one of a kind?”
It seems the reason is, they were saddled with that word, whether they liked it or not, and the common understanding of the word was “only begotten.” They would be laughed to scorn, by their detractors, if they tried to reinvent the word to their own theological understanding. And so, they maintained the common understanding of the word, and attempted to put theological parameters to the extent and nature of such a begetting from God, as they understood, form other portions of Scripture.
I have noticed in other languages the derivational meaning of monogenes has been preserved in such versions as Det Norsk Bibelselskap, the Russian Synodal Version, the La Nuova Diodat (Italian),Reina-Valera 1995 (Spanish), etc. However, in English there has been an explosion of new translations robbing the word of its derivational meaning. Now, to be fair, I do not know the age of the translations from these other languages. Perhaps, they also have newer translations that that now follow the English phenomenon.
I know as humans we are all subject to bias. It takes discipline and a fearlessness of the truth to be objective, but I doubt that for almost 1800 years no one was objective enough to question the meaning of monogenes, until the late 19th century, (as far as I can determine), and proclaim they had now discovered the true meaning of the word. Those who went before us were not dumb, especially those whose mother tongue was Greek, and especially those at Nicaea who scrutinized every word of their Creed, as lawyers would scrutinize the language of a contract. To say the correct meaning of MONOGENHS slipped by such scrutiny is utterly amazing, especially since, within the context of the Arian controversy, it might be to their advantage.
The only occurrence of the word in that milieu (first to fourth century), that I can find that might carry the sense of “kind” is the passage from I Clement, that I mentioned in my post to Octavio Rodriguez on Thursday 11-15, and even there the primary meaning of MONOGENHS fits nicely. What I posted to him was as follows:
_______________________________
Therefore, at least, in the second century, Greek speaking people were using MONOGENHS with the sense of "only born," or "only begotten," and not with the sense of "one of a kind." In fact, the only non-biblical writer I know that could approximate MONOGENHS with the sense of "kind" would be Clement (late 1st century).
Clement (A.D. 30-100) wrote from the church in Rome. He spoke of a legendary bird called the Phoenix, which was “uniquely-begotten.”
The Greek text reads touto monogenev upapxon The phrase could be translated thus: “This one, being “only-begotten,” lives 500 years.” Or it could be translated, “This one, being “only begotten,” lives 500 years.” He goes on to speak of this sole or unique begetting and the word he uses in the Greek to describe this is GENNATAI.
In addition, when one reads Ovid, (the Roman writer from whom Clement, more than likely, first learned about this bird), one finds the context of the passage filled with the idea of begotteness and the idea of being born. More than likely, it was this unique begetting that Clement was referring to when he used the word “MONOGENHS.”
The legendary bird was supposed to fly to a nest after 500 years, at which time it would die. At its death a worm was “begotten” from its flesh which would grow feathers and wings and become the new Phoenix bird for another 500 years, (thus the term only-begotten). [1] In other words, because only one Phoenix lived and was born at a time, that is until another 500 years, it, indeed, was an “only begotten.” No more were born until the next generation arrived.
"Only begotten" fits the text better when considering the context and the source of the story from Ovid, than does a translation of “one of a kind.” Although, to be fair this is the only occasion where I believe one could argue for “one of kind.”
_____________________________________
Therefore, do you concur that “mysticism” and “theological bias” is plaguing our modern understanding of this word, and can a scientific approach even apply to etymology with any hope of success?
Yours Truly,
B.Harris
________________________________
[1]Kittel, Gerhard, ed., Bromiley, Geoffrey W., trans. & ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IV, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1967), pg. 738
[2]Perseus Digital Library Project. Ed. Gregory R. Crane. Updated Mar. 31,2009. Tufts University. Accessed Oct. 1, 2009 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu
________________________________
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, November 6, 2009 2:13:14 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John1:18-revised
Dear Yancy,
See my comments below.
>I note that the Hebrew word sometimes translated
>и иуиюиуи║и┬июпV MONOGENHS in Hebrew, хах⌠,
>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
>и╩иЬ? иЬ?и-и┴ и иуиюиуи║и┬ию?V иЬ?и-?
>?и║иЬ╪и┴и-?, и╩иЬ? иу?и╩ ?и-и-и╚ию иЬ?и-? ╪и┼?ию
>иЬ?и-?V и"??V ? и░и"и║?и-и┴и╕, 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
---
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