From: Bart Ehrman (behrman@email.unc.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 01 1998 - 11:47:51 EST
I'd like to thank Rolf for mentioning my discussion of this variant,
but I want to emphasize in response that, at least from my vantage point
(a probative point only if one concedes the intent of an author!) my
argument was not *at all* theological, in the way he seems to mean, but
*strictly* textual -- that is, I argue on purely philological, literary,
and historical grounds for one reading over the other. When I discuss
"monogenhs," it is, for me, a historical question about what the word
meant to an ancient reader, not about what it might mean to modern day
believers with somewhat different agendas.
-- Bart D. Ehrman
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> 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 dénouement 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 - 15:38:44 EDT