Economy1@intersurf.com was saying:
<<I realize that you have aparently missed some of the prior fellowship.
I did not write to persuade but merely to inform.>>
I am fully aware of that. But I wrote to let you know that I was not
persuaded. Since this is a list wherein the meaning of Greek words/grammar
are discussed, I took advantage of an opportunity to respond to your
information, and provide food for thought on why I do not agree with your
tentative (?) conclusion that MONOGENES is semantically equivalent to
AGAPETOS. I will ignore your negative implications as to my motivation. It
has no bearing on the point at hand, and is not worth further comment.
I said:
> I have studied the use of MONOGENES, also, and while I find it can mean,
> "only," unique," and "only-begotten," I cannot conclude on the basis of
>your material that the meaning "only-begotten" is not permissible in the
Fourth
> Gospel. Here's why:
To which you replied:
((I notice that you begin from the presupposition and then refused to move in
the face of my evidence which is not presented as persuasion.
Is there a particular reason for that? Is it a KJV-only kind of thing?))
What I did was read your post and then, after considering what you said, I
rejected it. This because I was not "moved" in the face of your "evidence." I
never said you intended to persuade; again, I assume you post your comments
with the idea that someone might offer a reply? Is it proper only to reply
(disagree with) those posts which intend to persuade?
I said:
> <<Here is what I find:
> 1) "Only begotten" in a context of many other "birthings" simply makes no
> logical sense. While I would not rely solely on "reason" in comprehension
> of such a term, I see nothing to be gained by thrusting away common sense.
> I acknowledge missing a good part of the dialogue on MONOGENES, but where
is
> it used "in a context of many other `birthings'"?
To which you replied:
((The context is the very point of my observation. How has your study failed
to notice the immediate context?))
It has not. How do gather this from my words above? My question was simple:
Where is MONOGENES used (to quote you) "in a context of many other
`birthings'"? You present this as one of your reasons for rejecting
"only-begotten." I am questioning your "logical sense" in doing so.
I said:
>Of course, if the context involves some sort of "unique" generation, whereby
God generated one
>being in a manner different than any other (whether this be an "eternal
generation" or
> sole, direct offspring [not through a medium--i.e., the Logos himself]),
then
> we must allow such a connotation of MONOGENES to exist, regardless of
>whether or not others (angels) are said to be His "sons." (Job 38:7)
To which you replied:
((Indeed. But haven't you merely concluded your premise?))
Not at all. I am presenting a hypoethetical situation, in response to your
dilema on MONOGENES in the context of "many other `birthings,'" which, if
true, according to you, does not yield a "logical sense." Of course, your
thinking that such is illogical is itself a conclusion to your premise,
namely, that MONOGENES cannot yield a "logical sense" in the context of
others who are giving birth. My response was intended to show that such a
"sense" is possible for MONOGENES in just such a context. If God begat only
one being, and then used that one to produce all others, then MONOGENES can
mean "only-begotten" within a context where these "other" offspring are
produced, and yet still retain its "logical sense," for that generation
(whether eternal or temporal) is distinguished by the sense of the co- and
context.
I said:
>But if "beloved"
> is the connotation one should associate with MONOGENES, then why should we
> find this term restricted to offspring, and not to the parents, or the
child's brothers or sisters?
To which you replied:
((Agreed. And this is why I have said that "beloved" seems an insufficient
rendering.))
I understand that. I am simply pointing out another reason why it is
insufficient.
You said:
((And please note that you are discussion connotation. I am discussing
denotation. But I maintain my conclusion concerning "only" or "only
begotten".))
Iam discussing the connotations of MONOGENES in filial contexts because I am
not so much interested in the lexical definition of the word as I am how it
is _used_. Now, if you are going to argue that "beloved" is part of the
lexical meaning of MONOGENES, then you are going to have bring forth more
evidence than an alleged connection between the LXX of Gen 22 and Hebrews
11:17 (which I will argue below is invalid anyway)! To become part of the
lexical meaning of the word you must establish a widespread use of the
particular sense so that it may be counted on as an established sense in the
public domain. But for you to conclude on one (possible) _usage_ of MONOGENES
as "beloved" does nothing to establish its denotation. At best, it is an
instance of usage, and hardly enough for you conclude that "only" and
"only-begotten" are not part of the lexical meaning of MONOGENES.
I said:
>Why is the phrase MONOGENES ADELPHOS never
> found? Yet, we do find ADELPHOS AGAPETOS. (1 Cor. 15:58; Eph 6:21; Php 4:1;
> al)
To which you replied:
((Because the word does have a connotative sense of a parent-child
relationship.))
Exactly! So, then, through an examination of the connotations associated with
a particular word, especially in similar contexts, we can begin to establish
its lexical sense (denotation), and successfully do so if enough usages are
found whereby we can say that such usage had become a standard, public idiom.
You also said:
((But do you find MONOGENES AGAPETOS?))
No, but this is quite beside the point. If MONOGENES is used exclusively (in
filial contexts) of the child (not the parent or other siblings), then we
begin to see a _standard_ usage emerging. And if it is so used, then the
attempt to equate the meaning between it and AGAPETOS, which is used of
"brothers," is weakened by the usage of the later. Thus, the established
usage of MONOGENES, whatever it means, was apparently such that _it could not
be used of a brother or father_, but only a child. So AGAPETOS and MONOGENES,
by their _usage_, are shown to have distinct denotations, and, of course,
disinct connotations.
You said:
> <<2) The LXX translators seem to have approved the sense of "beloved". The
> terms "MONOGENES" and "AGAPETOUS" appear to be nearly synonymous. This is
> especially enlightening when comparing LXX renderings of the status of
> Isaac in Genesis 22 with that employed in the Hebrews verse. >>
To which I replied:
> How does the LXX demonstrate synonymy between MONOGENES and AGAPETOS?
Surely
> not in Gen 22. How does referring to Isaac as "beloved" (AGAPETOS) three
> times in this chapter constitute synonymy between MONOGENES and AGAPETOS?
To which you replied:
((Apparently you have not looked at the LXX very closely either in your
study. I will indulge this lacuna with a comment.
The LXX is a TRANSLATION.
The underlying Hebrew word is variously translated.
It is translated using these two words.
Compare Gen. 22:16 and Psa. 22:20.))
I have looked at the LXX closely. Your argument is flawed, as I will show.
But first, I should point out that you appealed soley to Gen 22 in your
initial comments. The implication was that the description of Isaac in this
chapter somehow supported your view. It did not, and that is what I pointed
out. Now to your present argument.
The fact that YACHID in Gen 22:16 and Ps 22:20 is translated by AGAPETOS and
MONOGENES, respectively, does not do the work you want it to. First, does the
fact that a Hebrew word is rendered by two different Greek words mean the
Greek words have the same meaning? If so, then what are we to make of the
LXX's translation of YACHID by MONOTROPOS? (Ps 68[7]:6) Clearly, it is a
fallacy to assume that because the LXX offers different translations for the
same Hebrew word that this then means the meaning of the words in the
receptor language are thereby synonomous. Silva (Biblical Words and Their
Meaning, 1994, p. 72) points out: "One cannot assume, to begin with, that if
we identify the Hebrew word corresponding to the Greek word being being
studied, the meaning of the later is thereby established. It would of course
be a mistake to ignore the Hebrew altogether, but we must maintain a
sensitive balance between the meaning of a word in secular Greek and THE
DESIRE OF THE TRANSLATOR TO PRESERVE THE THRUST OF THE ORIGINAL." (emphasis
mine) The fact that the author of Hebrews (known for his frequent quotation
of the LXX), chose not to do so in Hebrews 11:17, but used an entirely
different word, when there would appear to be no real reason for him to do
so, suggests he did not agree with the sense of the of the LXX in this
instance,. He was, after all, familiar with AGAPETOS. (Heb 6:9)
You said:
> <<3) The Old Latin rendering of "unicus" seems to contradict Jerome's
> understandable use of the cognate "unigenitus". >>
To which I replied:
> The question here is, What is an accurate representation of the OL? Codex
> Vercellensis? Then what are we to make of Hilary's use of UNIGENITUS when
> quoting John 1:1-14, 18? Dahms ("The Johannine Use of Monogenes
> Reconsidered," NTS 29 [1983], 226) reasons: "It is hardly conceivable that
he
> [Hilary] could have made such a comment without more ado unless his readers
> were familiar with UNIGENITUS in their Latin New Testaments."
To which you replied:
((Well, I must admit that this sort of academic shiboleth is distasteful to
have to deal with, but I suppose answer must be made.))
Why is it so distastful? Did you not appeal to the OL to buttress your
"findings"?
If there is information that shows your understanding of pre-Jerome Latin
does quite
support your theory, should you not welcome its consideration?
((I find the situation entirely conceivable in an age before formal
orthodoxy. Anyone who may have questioned it found the cognate in the Greek.
Of course, this presupposes literacy and availability probably beyond the
actual facts. Furthermore, employing such a term would hardly cause a stir if
it was a foregone conclusion among those who were defining the orthodoxy.))
So then the best you can do, as far as the OL is concerned, is assume. Thus
it cannot be said that the OL contradicts Jeromes' use of UNIGENITUS.
You said:
> <<4) The Father's "begetting" of the Son of an eternally co-existent
>Trinity is self-defeating argumentation to Trinitarians.>>
To which I replied:
> Well, I would ask that you explain just how this is self-defeating, but
also
> what of the possibility that it simply means "only-begotten" in a temporal
> sense? Is this, too, "self-defeating"?
((Well, I will not try to explain the Trinity any further than to point out
that if the Father "begot" the Son, it is the Son's origin. Such a Son is
not
eternally co-existent with the Father. If the thought of "only begotten" were
intended to be attached to the fact of the incarnation alone, it would seem
justifiable to me as a translation. The Johannine context always implies the
incarnation. Nevertheless, the context also always implies the operation of
God's love. I stress again: I am dissatisfied with "beloved" as a rendering
except as PREFERABLE to "only" or "only begotten".))
Why must the idea of generation be "attached to the fact of the incarnation
alone" for you to accept it? Is your bias entering the picture?
You said:
> <<5) Matthew, Mark, and Luke use the phrase "beloved Son" (Strong's <27>
+
> <5207>), whereas John does not. >>
To which I replied:
> The point here would be? Does the fact that only John uses THEOS of Jesus
> mean it must share a semantic equivalence with a term in the Synoptics?
To which you replied:
((Of course not.
This is inductive reasoning.
It is merely some evidence.))
My point is that it is no evidence at all. And that is why I reject it.
I said:
>Also,
> Matthew uses AGAPETOS three times (3:17; 12:18; 17:5), Mark uses it three
> times (1:11; 9:7; 12:6) and Luke only twice (3:22; 20:13 [three times if
you
> count Acts 15:25]), while John uses MONOGENES five times (Jn 1:14, 18;
3:16,
> 18; 1 Jn 4:9). None of the Synoptic or Johannine texts are of the same
> account, with the Synoptics using AGAPETOS and John using MONOGENES. If
that
> were the case, then you might have a point.
To which you replied:
((Agreed.
It would be far simpler if the word were employed as a direct substitution.
But not all the things in the Word or the world are so simple.))
Then your point is moot.
I said:
>But as it is, you do not.
To which you replied:
((Again, this is not deductive, but inductive.
It is not absolute proof. It is merely some evidence.
I do have a point. Your failure to concede it and deal with it merely
demonstrates bias.))
Hardly. I am merely pointing out the weakness of your "findings." How is it
bias to reveal that a certain argument holds no water? You put forth an
argument that does not point to your conclusion.
I said:
>Also,
> it must not be forgotten that Luke uses MONOGENES three times. (7:12; 8:42;
> 9:38) How do you account for this? Why did he not simply use AGAPETOS?
To which you replied:
((Because the word DOES have a connotation of the parent-child relationship.
This is merely not its absolute "definition".))
Again, that is what you are supposed to _prove_. If my definition can be
established through a pattern of consistent _usage_, which even you agree is
the case, then how is your "definition" more "absolute" than mine, when you
have yet to demonstrate even one instance of a usage favoring your
definition?
You said:
((I notice that you do not concede here my sense of "beloved" as even implied
in the word. This also exposes bias.))
Replying to you is getting more and more tiresome, when replies like this are
the focus of my attention. This is not the reason I am on b-Greek. Still, the
only sense of "beloved" in these uses is from the fact that the child is so
beloved because it is MONOGENES. You have not demonstrated a usage of
"beloved" in these passages, therefore, why should I "concede" it? How is
this bias? I would no more conced "beloved" here than I would "solitary"
(MONOTROPOS), from the evidence you have presented.
You said:
> <<6) Isaac is, in fact, not "only begotten" but is singularly
"beloved".>>
To which I replied:
> Of course, that is the very point you must prove. If, from a human
> standpoint, a child must have two parents, then how is it that Isaac could
> not be the "only-begotten" of Abraham and Sarah?
((It is not a question of Abraham and Sarah.
Sarah is not mentioned.
The context in both Genesis and Hebrews is only the relationship between
Abraham himself and Isaac.
Abraham, in fact, had begotten another.))
You have ignored the point. Abraham, by himself, begat _no one_. Again, from
a human standpoint, a child must have two parents. Since Abraham is the focus
in Hebrew 11:17, then it is easy to see why Sarah is not directly mentioned,
but naturally implied in the begetting of Isaac, which Abraham alone could
not do. No, Abraham did not beget another; Abraham _and_ Hagar begat another.
Also, there is evidence that Isaac was considered the only _genuine_ son of
Abraham, and hence, to consider him the only-begotten son without regard to
Ishamael is not difficult to imagine. For example, Philo (De Abr 194) says:
GNESION TE HUION PEPOIEMENOS MONON TOUTON EUTHYS EIKHE KAI TO PATHOS EP' AUTO
TES EUNOIAS GNESION. Here GNESION modifies TOUTON, describing Isaac as
Abraham's only _genuine_ son. But, again, the main thought is that Isaac is
the "only" or "only-begotten" son of Abraham and Sarah, so this sense is
acceptable in Heb 11:17.
You said:
((This also relates to the LXX again.
As you have pointed out, LXX Gen. 22 employs AGAPETOS.
Hebrews 11:17 employs MONOGENES.))
That you would argue for a denotative meaning for MONOGENES as "beloved" on
these grounds is truly remarkable. There is nothing to suggest that Paul is
simply describing Isaac in his own terms. If I were referring to someone
else's child, who was dearly loved and only-begotten, how is it that I cannot
refer to that child as "dearly loved," and my wife refer to him as
"only-begotten," without establishing a semantic equivalence between the
these descriptions?
You said:
> <<7) The "MONOGENES" use of "MONO" as a prefix is a most uncommon
formation
> in the New Testament. While MONOPHTHALMOS, "one-eyed" clearly retains the
> sense of "only", the concept of the "single eye" in context is obviously
> broader than the hyperbolic context of eye-plucking. This implies that a
> similar idiomatic use is likely in the case of "MONOGENES".>>
To which I replied:
> No, it implies no such thing. I would hardly attempt to argue
etymologically
> from MONOPHTHALMOS for a similar "idiomatic use" in MONOGENES in filial
> contexts!
To which you replied:
((These are conclusory statements and do not serve to support your
position.))
I am simply revealing the inappropriateness of your methods.
I said:
>If an argument from etymology is to be found, it is from those
> words ending in -GENES, but you will not find any help there either, as
there
> are words ending in -GENES that imply uniqueness _and_ generation; however,
> none will be found with the connotation of "beloved."
To which you replied:
((Of course, you cannot vigorously denouce my method and then employ it.))
I argued against your use of MONOS for an eytmological argument. No one
disputes the meaning of MONOS. But if we consider the possibilities for
GENOS, then it seems a variety of meanings emerge, except _yours_. Again, I
am objecting to your use of MONOS, not etymological arguments as a whole,
although they too are limited.
((I will not address the merits of the argument.))
I didn't think you would.
((If such argument may not be made, you may not make it.))
Oh, really? Let's see, first you refuse to acknowledge the argument (for
obvious reasons) then you deny me the right to argue it? I am afraid our
dialogue is running swiftly to an end.
You said:
> <<Therefore, if there is any thought of "onliness" or "begetting" in the
> term, it should be seen as secondary and connotative rather than
> denotative.>>
To which I replied:
> Not from the evidence you have given. I appreciate your study, and thank
you
> for your presentation, but I am not convinced, for the aforementioned
> reasons.
To which you replied:
((I did not present to convince but merely to present.
You reject my findings, as is your right.
But you should note that I have considered each of your points before
reaching my conclusions.))
You may have considered them, but hardly addressed them. My presentations
were not necessarily given to convince you, either. I, again, simply gave my
reasons for rejecting your conclusions.
I said:
>If anything, "beloved" is secondary in its relation to MONOGENES
> used in filial contexts, as the "only-begotten" child is beloved because it
> is the sole child of the parents.
To which you replied:
((It is good that you almost concede the point.
But actually, you seem to assume it more deeply than you represent.
At least I am not all wrong!))
Yes, I believe you _are_ all wrong in thinking that "beloved" is a denotation
of MONOGENES. And I almost concede nothing. My statement is quite clear, and
was intended to show that a child who is MONOGENES is most likely also
"beloved." And this is the only sense in which "beloved" would relate to
MONOGENES, at least as far as I have seen.
You said:
((I spoke with a Modern Greek speaker about it.
He considered the word to mean "made only once" in the sense of a
"custom-built" automobile. If the word has any sense of "onliness" it
should be something like this.
Christ is the Firstborn of all creation. If the term is limited to its
application in the context of His incarnation, it should probably be
something other than "begotten".))
I am not sure how a modern Greek can offer anything extraordinary to this
discussion, unless he/she has studied the use of MONOGENES in the time period
under consideration.
I said:
>But I believe the meaning of MONOGENES
> must come from a careful study of the context in which it is used, and when
> that is done I believe the two meanings that emerge, especially in filial
> contexts, are "only" and "only-begotten."
To which you replied:
((Which, again, you have stated in a conclusory fashion.
Perhaps it is because you never moved from your original conviction that
you were correct in your assumption.))
You are again digressing into your own assumptions. My conclusions are a
result of my studies, and thus I state them as I see them, from the evidence
I have considered.
You said:
((Your appeal to "context" for such "careful study" amuses me in light of the
fact that you seem unaware of the contexts which must be addressed,
both Johannine and LXX.))
I am quite aware of each context, and I am not amused by your "replies."
((Perhaps you should reconsider your "belief".
It appears to be unfounded.))
That you should digress to such a topic only serves to underscore how
directly related such motivations are to your "findings."
Thank you for your response.
Apok