From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Thu Jan 01 1998 - 10:10:53 EST
Jonathan Robie wrote:
<John 1:18 says:
<John 1:18 QEON OUDEIS hEWRAKEN PWPOTE: MONOGENHS QEOS hO WN EIS TON KOLPON
<TOU PATROS EKEINOS EXHRHSATO
<This has to uses of QEOS without the article, but the second, MONOGENHS
<QEOS, is particularly interesting! I am not positive what the best
<translation is, but I think there are some clear contextual constraints on
<its interpretation:
<1. QEOS has to be definite in these verses, and can be neither indefinite
<nor qualitative;
<2. This verse asserts that there is one definite entity that was in the
<bosom of the Father, who has revealed God to us, and who is MONOGENHS QEOS.
<Some later manuscripts do add the article (hO MONOGENHS QEOS), in which
<case "the only begotten God" seems to be the right translation. Without it,
<Robertson suggests the translation "God only begotten". Are there other
<ways to interpret this?
Dear Jonathan,
Your observations (1) and (2) above are correct. Clay refers to M.J.
Harris, and I will in addition, as far as textual criticism is concerned,
refer to B.D. Ehrmann, 1993."The Orthodox corruption of Scripture". He
chooses hO MONEGENHS hUIOS, but his reasons are more theological/logical
than textual. Says he on p 81:
"By definition there can be only one MONOGENHS: the word means "unique",
"one of a kind". The problem, of course, is that Jesus can be the unique
God only if there is no other God; but for the Fourth Gospel, the Father is
God as well. Indeed, even in this passage the MONOGENHS is said to reside
in the bosom of the Father. How can the MONOGENHS QEOS, the unique God ,
stand in such a relationship to (another) God?"
Ehrman`s problem can be solved by accepting the points in the last posting
of Wes, that inside the Judeo-Christian sphere is there a genus QEOI apart
from hO QEOS where the angels belong; and in this group is there one who is
unique (also in relation to the angels) both because he was God`s first
son, and because he was the mediating agent when God created, and this one
is MONOGENHS QEOS. Only if we pray to and worship this one in addition to
hO QEOS will the above view become polytheism or henotheism. But if we pray
to and worship hO QEOS alone THROUGH this one, and give hO MONOGENHS QEOS
the honour he deserves (Phil 2:9-10; Rev 5:12.13), then we keep our
monotheism undiluted. I have often wondered how dogmas made in the 4th and
5th centuries can have such a profound effect upon modern Christians that
even their logic and imagination are affected to the point that they cannot
see there exists a fully logical alternative to these dogmas.
(One quote from R.P.C. Hanson,1988, "The Search for the Christian Doctrine
of God" p xix): "With the exception of Athanasius virtually every
theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least
up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the dŽnouement of
the controvercy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy."
Regarding John 1:18, many arguments have been used to avoid a translation
corroborating the the subordinationistic view that LOGOS is a part of the
genus QEOI. Harris ("Jesus as God" p 88) refers to one Bible translation
(NASB) and 15 commentators who takes MONOGENHS as an adjective qualifying
theos ( suggesting the rendering "the only begotten God" or something
similar); this accords with subordinationism. He refers to 7 translations
(TCNT, NAB, NIV(1973,1978), NRSV and NAB, Goodspeed and Phillips) and 9
commentators who takes MONOGENHS as a substantivized adjective ("God, the
only Son" or something similar), and two translations (NIV 1984 and GNB
1966,1971) and 15 commentators who in different ways avoids using MONOGENHS
as an adjective qualifying theos ("the only One, who is the same as God" or
something similar).
You ask for constraints, and there is a grammatical one. The word MONOGENHS
is an adjective, and any adjective can be substantivized. However, I am not
aware of any example in the NT of an adjective which immediately precedes a
substantive in the same gender, number and case and which do not qualify
that substantive. So it seems to be somewhat forced to take it as most
translations do. Says Buchsel (TDNT IV 740, n 14) "/monogenes theos/ can
only mean "an only-begotten God"; to render "an only-begotten, one who is
God" is an exegetical invention. It can hardly be credited of Jn., who is
distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression."
Taking John 1:18 in the most natural way we have three passages (1:1 amd
17:3) in the gospel of John pointing to another individual who is existing
in addition to hO QEOS, and this one is "a god/divine" or god with
qualification, namely "the onlybegotten/unique god".
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:43 EDT