[B-Greek] MONOGENHS in the Fourth Gospel

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Jun 30 09:57:23 EDT 2010


On Jun 30, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Michael Baber wrote:

> 
> Your thesis supposes that the rendering of the A.V. (and those translations which follow suit) of John 1:12 is correct, but many early patristic theologians, including Tertullian and Irenaeus, held that such a rendering was incorrect.

I think this becomes a matter, not of what the Greek text of the Johannine gospel
as a Greek text taken in its immediate context may mean but rather of its
subsequent interpretation. This may tell us what later readers thought it meant
but it really lies outside the scope of textual analysis of the Johannine Greek 
passages in which the word MONOGENHS appears.

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

>  In On the Flesh of Christ, XIX, Tertullian (208 A.D.) writes,
> What then is the meaning of, "Was born not of blood, nor of the
> will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God?" (John 1:13) This text will
> be of more use to me than to them, when I have refuted those
> who falsify it. For they maintain that it was thus written, "Were
> born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of a man, but of God," as
> though it referred to the above-mentioned believers in his name;
> and, from it they try to prove that there exists that mystic seed of
> the elect and spiritual which they baptize for themselves. But
> how can it mean this, when those who believe in the name of the
> Lord are all of them by the common law of human kind born of
> blood and of the will of the flesh and of a man, as also is Valentinus 
> himself? Consequently the singular is correct, as referring
> to the Lord, i.e. "was born...of God."
>  
> Ibid, XXIV, Tertullian writes,
> And, "Was born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of a man, but of God," was his answer to Ebion.
>  
> In Against Heresies, Book III, XVI, Irenaeus writes,
> Matthew might certainly have said, "Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise," but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, "But the birth of Christ was on this wise," and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man, for "not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh" (John 1:13), and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same.
>  
> Ibid, Book III, XIX, Irenaeus writes,
> For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation?" since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?" But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man" (John 1:13), is the Son of Man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God.
>  
> Ibid, Book V, I, Irenaeus writes,
> So also, in [the times of] the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam's formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive. For never at any time did Adam escape the hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." And for this reason in the last times, "not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man" (John 1:13), but by the good pleasure of the Father, His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God.
>  
> Both Irenaeus and Tertullian contend that the one "begotten, not by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but rather, by God" is the Word, not the "sons of God who believe on His name," for according to Tertullian, all of humanity is naturally begotten (fathered) by blood, by the will of the flesh, and by the will of man. Therefore, it is apparent that Irenaeus and Tertullian read manuscripts which did not contain the nominative plural relative pronoun hoi, but rather, the nominative singular relative pronoun hos.







More information about the B-Greek mailing list