Date: Thu Sep 25 1997 - 17:06:15 EDT
The long-winding discussion over John 1.1c cannot be resolved solely on
grammatical grounds apart from a discussion of John 1.14 and 1.18. There
first needs be a consensus that 1.14, the word became flesh . . . and we
beheld its glory, a glory like that of an only son of a father, and 1.18,
the only-begotten god, who is in the womb of the Father, refer to the same
personage as the logos of verse one.
Assuredly, the logos is not identical with God the Father in any one of
these verses, without a serious contradiction against the other two.
A synoptic view of the matter yields a god-llike figure, an aspect of
God, a begotten deity, in close union with the primal begetter. The key
adjective, MONOGENHES, could mean "offspring of one parent", as well as "only
offspring". Of these two meanings, the former creates good grounds for the
logical identity of father and son in 5.18, 10.30 et al. Besides, many
others are said to be begotten of God in verse thirteen.
I would particularly like to hear any response concerning the
translation proposed above for 1.14., viz., "like that of an only [son] of a
father," WS MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS.
richard arthur Merrimack, NH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:31 EDT