3 comments

1. My Greek prof and my Hebrew prof disagree on μονογενής. My Greek prof points out that μονογενής is most likely from μονο (only) and -γενής (kind) and not γεννάω (to beget). He argues that it should therefore best be translated “only,” “unique,” or “one of a kind” or something to that effect. My Hebrew prof says that the modern translations have gone wrong because the way in which Christ is unique IS his begotten-ness. So, even if μονογενής is not from γεννάω, we should preserve the ancient and credal language of begotten-ness in our translation of μονογενής. I’m with my Hebrew professor on this, but thought I’d point out the argument for “only” is more than simply looking at the LXX.

   God bless!

   Reply ↓

   • Jared,

     Thanks for this reminder. I had forgotten about the etymological argument.

     I still think that John’s usage trump’s the etymological argument.

     We all know that etymology has limited value in determining the sense of a word. Nice is derived from the Latin word for stupid but nice hasn’t meant stupid for a very long time.

     I’m impressed by the fact that half or more of the early church were native Greek speakers/readers yet they used monogenes to signal eternal generation.

     Reply ↓

     • I totally agree with you. BTW, have you seen the new revisions for the ESV? They translated John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son,” which isn’t in any manuscript witness. They also changed Gen. 3:16 back to “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

       Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.