John 1:14 μονογενής

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Karen Pitts
Posts: 4
Joined: February 13th, 2016, 2:54 pm

John 1:14 μονογενής

Post by Karen Pitts »

I'm preaching a sermon on John 1:1-5, 1:14. My question is on John 1:14, Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας:

I remember discussion on μονογενής from years ago that the best Greek understanding is "unique". I looked it up in BAGD and get "only son", "only, unique" but also get "only-begotten". Perseus via LSJ says "only member of a kin." Is there a better source for my argument that one ought not to use "only-begotten"?

Thanks.

Karen Pitts
Colorado Springs
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: John 1:14 μονογενής

Post by cwconrad »

Karen Pitts wrote:I'm preaching a sermon on John 1:1-5, 1:14. My question is on John 1:14, Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας:

I remember discussion on μονογενής from years ago that the best Greek understanding is "unique". I looked it up in BAGD and get "only son", "only, unique" but also get "only-begotten". Perseus via LSJ says "only member of a kin." Is there a better source for my argument that one ought not to use "only-begotten"?
Yes, I know there's been much discussion of this question; in fact, I think I've changed my mind more than once on this. I frankly wonder whether this question can be resolved satisfactorily independently of one's theological stance (e.g. the Nicene Creed's "γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα"). In terms of etymology, the -γεν- element seems derivative from the noun γένος, "kind"/"kindred" rather than from the verbal stem γεννα/η- "beget", but usage in context has more bearing on intended meaning than etymology, and in biblical texts, LXX as well as GNT, the adjective is more often than not used of an only child -- but that doesn't really clarify the question whether the adjective μονογενής necessarily involves a notion of "generation" or "begetting" in a biological sense. If we look at LSJ, we see that the adjective is found in earlier Greek with τὸ ὅν (where? surprise: Parmenides!), with grammatical gender -- of an adjective having one form for all three genders (Apollonius Dyskolos). I personally think the BDAG entry is well-done; others question it.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: John 1:14 μονογενής

Post by Wes Wood »

cwconrad wrote:I frankly wonder whether this question can be resolved satisfactorily independently of one's theological stance (e.g. the Nicene Creed's "γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα").
Hear, Hear!

You can provide instances where μονογενής means something other than only begotten, but I don't see how doing so would prove beyond all doubt that the author meant to convey that particular thought. I prefer the translation "unique son" because it is broad enough to include all of the possible options without narrowing the focus to a single meaning that cannot be proven beyond doubt.

Here are a few passages that are used to support the translation "unique," but I am sure you already have them.
Hebrews 11:17
Πίστει προσενήνοχεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ πειραζόμενος καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν, ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος,

1 Clement 25:2a
ὄρνεον γάρ ἐστιν, ὃ προσονομάζεται φοῖνιξ· τοῦτο μονογενὲς ὑπάρχον ζῇ ἔτη πεντακόσια·
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
Karen Pitts
Posts: 4
Joined: February 13th, 2016, 2:54 pm

Re: John 1:14 μονογενής

Post by Karen Pitts »

Thank you. Both replies helped. I'll probably go with "only son" or "unique son" (both ESV and RSV go "only son" while NIV does "One and Only"). I know the creeds. Theologically speaking, Baptists tend to ignore the creeds (for good or ill); I made my kids memorize the Nicene Creed.

I'm trying to stress what John says in John 1:1 ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and John 1:3 πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, both of which avoid using μονογενής or γεννάω but I feel I need John 1:14 to complete the thought of who Jesus is. Needless to say, I am trying to be as true to the text as possible, recognizing that I bring biases as well as anyone else.

Thanks again.

Karen Pitts
Colorado Springs
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 1:14 μονογενής

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Karen Pitts wrote: I remember discussion on μονογενής from years ago that the best Greek understanding is "unique". I looked it up in BAGD and get "only son", "only, unique" but also get "only-begotten". Perseus via LSJ says "only member of a kin." Is there a better source for my argument that one ought not to use "only-begotten"?
For an older discussion see http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... =44&t=3272 and a link there to an even older discussion.

Depending on your audience W. Grudem's systematic theology may have some authority, it has an appendix about this word.
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: John 1:14 μονογενής

Post by RandallButh »

Karen Pitts wrote:Thank you. Both replies helped. I'll probably go with "only son" or "unique son" (both ESV and RSV go "only son" while NIV does "One and Only"). I know the creeds. Theologically speaking, Baptists tend to ignore the creeds (for good or ill); I made my kids memorize the Nicene Creed.

I'm trying to stress what John says in John 1:1 ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and John 1:3 πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, both of which avoid using μονογενής or γεννάω but I feel I need John 1:14 to complete the thought of who Jesus is. Needless to say, I am trying to be as true to the text as possible, recognizing that I bring biases as well as anyone else.

Thanks again.

Karen Pitts
Colorado Springs

If you're going back to John 1.1-3 then you may be helped by knowing the ancient Jewish blessing:
שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיָה בִּדְבָרוֹ Translated woodenly this becomes ὅτι τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο δι᾽ [τοῦ λόγου] αὐτοῦ. (See M.Brakhot 6. A careful reading of the gospels helps date these blessings as pre-Christian, even if the Mishnah is their first written collection.) Yes, this marvelous 'logos-ode' develops out of a widely used phrase on the lips of first-century Jews. I've always seen this logos-statement as coming from an internal Jewish development rather than imported and injected from Greek philosophy [though indirectly there is no denying the Greek influence in Jewish discussions post-Alexander, even in the influence on the Hebrew language itself].

This won't resolve your reading of μονογενής but it ameliorates the issue by putting everything more solidly in a "Jewish logos" framework.

שיצלח השם דרכך. May He lead your endeavors to success.
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”