Linguistics, grammar and punctuation John 1:18

Apparently there are several variations of the verse from John 1:18, but the main difference between the different renderings is the μονογενὴς θεός (monogenes theos, "the only God") versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenes huios, "the only son") part.

If we assumed for a moment that the variation with 'theos' is the right one, and monogenes means one of a kind, only or unique, the Greek says: θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Word-by-word translation without punctuation would be something like: god no one has seen at anytime a unique god the [one] being in the bosom of the father he has made known

What I'd like to know is if this sentence can't be (grammatically restructured or be framed in a different way and) read something like this (with a change in punctuation, and from the idea that monogenes means one of a kind, only or unique): “No one has ever seen God; the only (one) God. The one (being) in the bosom of the Father (OR sitting at his Fathers side) he has made Him known.”

And if we would assume that huios is the right one: “No one has ever seen God. The only son; the one (being) in the bosom of the Father (OR sitting at his Fathers side), he has made Him known.”

Note: I'm not asking if these are options theologically, but if they could be grammatically if you look at the original Greek texts and consider that they don't contain any real punctuation marks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

μονογενὴς θεός (monogenes theos, "the only God")

I would draw attention to the translation of the word μονογενὴς. You translate it "the only", "one of a kind, only or unique." I'm ok with that translation, but in my opinion there's more to it than that. Clearly it is a compound term consisting of the prefix μονο- and after that -γενὴς. Literally that would be "the only begotten." Perhaps you note that the suffix brings into mind the word "genesis"?

if this sentence can't be... read something like this: “No one has ever seen God; the only (one) God."

My translation "the only begotten" would make it sound - following your above suggestion: "No one has ever seen God, the only begotten God."

This is where theology comes in. It would be strange if God (the Father) were said to be "only begotten", as if there would be only a comma after the sentence "no one has ever seen God", with the subordinate clause "the only begotten God" qualifying the first sentence. That would make the Father as the begotten. So, theologically, definitely a big no to your suggestion.

That is why there must be a period or a full stop after the clause "no one has ever seen God." And after that a new sentence begins: "The only begotten God who is at the bosom of the Father, made him known" (μονογενὴς θεὸς⸃ ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο).

As to textual variants, usually the more difficult one is preferred. In this case the more difficult one is the variant μονογενὴς θεός, "the only begotten God", not the μονογενὴς υἱός, "the only begotten Son."

This is how I would answer your question. Perhaps someone else can bring some new light to this?

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

And welcome to the forums, Hope! (I just realized that this was your first post!) [:D]

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

Your question preoccupied me further.

I might add that Robert H. Mounce mentions in the RECB that "If μονογενής, monogenēs, is taken as a noun and followed by a comma, the result is a threefold description of Jesus: he is the unique one; he is God; he is the one who is in the bosom of the Father."

So does Leon Morris in his NICNT: "It is possible that we should punctuate with a comma after “begotten,” thus giving three titles of Christ: 'Only begotten, God, he who is in the bosom of the Father.'"

But even in the case mentioned by Mounce and Morris, the different place of comma is still a description of Jesus (the Son) - not a description of the Father.

This brings us back to the translation of μονογενὴς. As a characterization of the Father it makes no sense, since the Father is not begotten but does the begetting. Said of the Son it makes every sense, since the Son is not the one doing the begetting but is begotten, uniquely so.