Comparison between TDOT and VanGemeren's

I thought this has been asked before, but cannot find the post. I am wondering what the differences are between these two resources. I know, or would assume the TDOT is more exhaustive? And the VanGemeren's would be more conservative? But please, any input here would be great. Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

I know, or would assume the TDOT is more exhaustive?

TDOT is also more expensive than NIDOTTE

TDOT (Botterweck, et al) => Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT) (15 vols.)

NIDOTTE (VanGemeren) => New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vols.)

Keep Smiling [:)]

Nord Zootman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/943530#Comment_943530

It's too bad that Logos could not have the sale on TDOT that is going on elsewhere. A competitor has it for $149.99.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/943536#Comment_943536

It's too bad that Logos could not have the sale on TDOT that is going on elsewhere. A competitor has it for $149.99.

Wow. I wonder how they are able to sell it so cheap.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/943536#Comment_943536

It's too bad that Logos could not have the sale on TDOT that is going on elsewhere. A competitor has it for $149.99.

Yep- and I jumped on it

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/943538#Comment_943538

[:D]

I agree. I'd buy it in logos for $149. WordSearch isn't the best Bible software out there so maybe they get it because the publisher feels bad for them?

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/944046#Comment_944046

I saw this today and bought it right away: https://www.logos.com/product/5465/new-international-dictionary-of-old-testament-theology-and-exegesis

Then I recalled this thread and started to wonder whether something is wrong. The NT counterpart is is also on sale https://www.logos.com/product/45403/new-international-dictionary-of-new-testament-theology-and-exegesis but the combined is not https://www.logos.com/product/129798/new-international-dictionary-of-theology-and-exegesis-old-and-new-testament

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954490#Comment_954490

I couldn't resist myself at that price for NIDOTTE even if I don't do Hebrew...

I don't think something is wrong, or more wrong than usual, as this is just the way it is with this publisher's products (no dynamic pricing on the bundles either). But Logos will recognize that you own the bundle if you bought both parts.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954491#Comment_954491

But Logos will recognize that you own the bundle if you bought both parts.

Yes, that's my situation.

Keith Pang

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954532#Comment_954532

Both NIDOTTE and NIDNTTE are on sale, I have both and they are great resources. Even better since they are on sale!

David Carter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954544#Comment_954544

Both NIDOTTE and NIDNTTE are on sale, I have both and they are great resources. Even better since they are on sale!

And yet another "silent" Zondervan sale from Logos. Like everyone else ,I always find out about these Zondervan sales from Accordance and WS and then check to see if they are on sale with Logos, which is pretty poor business from Logos IMHO.

The sale ends tomorrow (Feb 14th) with the competition, so I would imagine the same will apply to Logos

Keith Pang

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954548#Comment_954548

And yet another "silent" Zondervan sale from Logos. Like everyone else ,I always find out about these Zondervan sales from Accordance and WS and then check to see if they are on sale with Logos, which is pretty poor business from Logos IMHO.

The sale ends tomorrow (Feb 14th) with the competition, so I would imagine the same will apply to Logos

Yeah I am not sure why that is either

Michael S.

So, I got TDOT... what would I gain by getting the VanGemeren/DeSilva set?

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954629#Comment_954629

So, I got TDOT... what would I gain by getting the VanGemeren/Silva set?

I never got a reply from anyone...

Can anyone add a response now- 6 months later?

Particularly comparing the Kittel's NT with Silva ?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993152#Comment_993152

So, I got TDOT... what would I gain by getting the VanGemeren/Silva set?

VanGemeren is aimed at preachers rather than academics. That's not to say it's unacademic (it's not). Here's a comparison of a random word. You'll see VanGemeren is more accessible for non-scholars, especially at providing a definition rather than just a discussion.

TDOT

ṣālaḥ*

Contents: I. Etymology and Meaning. II. Occurrences. III. Use: 1. Qal; 2. Hiphil: a. With Human Subjects; b. With Yahweh/God as Subject. IV. Qumran and LXX.

I. Etymology and Meaning. The root ṣlḥ is fairly common not only in Hebrew but also in the South Semitic (Old South Arabic; Tigriña) and Northwest Semitic languages, namely, in Phoenician and Punic in personal names, then also in Aramaic,1 in Biblical Aramaic,2 Jewish Aramaic, on into Samaritan and Syriac.3 The root does not appear in Ugaritic or in Aramaic inscriptions.
Evidence shows, however, that the root could exhibit an extremely broad semantic spectrum, including “to split, set on fire, be successful, intrude, succeed, advance,” etc. The result was that early on, scholars assumed not only that a semantic development or fanning out had taken place (e.g., between the individual verbal “stems”; cf. the pael and [h]aphel in Aramaic or Syriac), but also that different roots were actually involved.4 More recent dictionaries (also Puech and Sæbø), however, assume correctly that a single root underwent a semantic development in the sense of “force in, penetrate → split → permeate,” “get beyond a person → succeed.”5 By contrast, Blau adduces Am. 5:6 and Sir. 8:10 in postulating the presence of a root ṣlḥ II, “ignite, burn.”6 Although Tawil also adduces the Akk. root ešēru/šūšuru to illustrate and support the semantic breadth of Heb. ṣlḥ, this Akkadian root does not and cannot function as a related parallel to ṣlḥ.

II. Occurrences. The root ṣlḥ occurs only as a verb in the OT, with 25 occurrences of the qal and 40 of the hiphil, as well as 4 in the haphel in the Aramaic portions of the OT (Ezr. 5:8; 6:14; Dnl. 3:30; 6:29[Eng. 28]). The qal occurs in Nu. 14:41; Jgs. 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 S. 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; 18:10; 2 S. 19:18(17); Ps. 45:5(4); Isa. 53:10; 54:17; Jer. 12:1; 13:7, 10; 22:30(bis); Ezk. 15:4; 16:13; 17:9, 10, 15; Dnl. 11:27; Am. 5:6. The hiphil occurs in Gen. 24:21, 40, 42, 56; 39:2, 3, 23; Dt. 28:29; Josh. 1:8; Jgs. 18:5; 1 K. 22:12, 15; 1 Ch. 22:11, 13; 29:23; 2 Ch. 7:11; 13:12; 14:6(7); 18:11, 14; 20:20; 24:20; 26:5; 31:21; 32:30; Neh. 1:11; 2:20; Ps. 1:3; 37:7; 118:25; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 48:15; 55:11; Jer. 2:37; 5:28; 32:5; Dnl. 8:12, 24, 25; 11:36.
To these passages one can also add Hebrew Sir. 8:10; 11:17; 38:14; 43:26 (qal); 9:12; 39:18; 41:1 (hiphil), and 4 occurrences in the Qumran texts, including CD 13:21 (hiphil); 1Q27 fr. 1, II:5 (qal?); 11QT 53:21 (hiphil); 4Q381 48:3 (hiphil).
The word field of ṣlḥ includes especially → כשׁר kāšēr (with derivatives) and → שׂכל śkl.7 The more or less fixed expressions in which ṣlḥ is used are also of importance.8
Problematical translations or readings include Am. 5:6 (force an entry, penetrate—cf. Sir. 8:10?—as “ignite and then burn”? LXX analámpein) and 2 S. 19:18(17) (“they passed through the Jordan”: is the underlying notion “cut through, penetrate” here as well?).9

III. Use

1. Qal. Compared to the passages in the hiphil with their direct and indirect references to Yahweh or God,10 those using the qal, while not necessarily more concrete, are perhaps semantically somewhat reduced and may even include those problem passages mentioned above (Am. 5:6; 2 S. 19:18[17]). One textual group includes the expression “the spirit of Yahweh ‘attained’ [= came upon] a person.” The LXX generally uses hállomai or its derivatives in these passages, all of which include either an account or a promise (“will attain”) in speaking about this particular gift (Jgs. 14:6, 19; 15:14: Samson; 1 S. 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; in 1 S. 18:10, “an evil spirit from God” rushes upon Saul).
The most common notion is that someone “succeeds” at something, or is able to “complete” it. According to Ezk. 16:13, Jerusalem “attained” royal status (addendum?). Ps. 45:5(4) probably articulates a wish to the king.11 According to Isa. 53:10, Yahweh’s will “will succeed” through the servant (cf. Isa. 55:11, hiphil with regard to Yahweh’s word). The same understanding of “succeeding” is at work in Sir. 11:17 and 38:14, while 43:26 even associates it with Yahweh’s work of creation. Jer. 12:1 speaks of how the “way” of the wicked succeeds.12
By contrast, more frequently we read that something “will not succeed,” that someone will “not be able to do” something, or that some person or thing is “no longer useful” for something. Such applies in Nu. 14:41 to the people’s attempt to conquer the land without Yahweh’s help. Isa. 54:17 promises that no weapon “fashioned against you [Zion/Israel]” will succeed. According to Ezk. 15:4, the charred wood of the vine branch is not suitable for anything (formulated as a rhetorical question, picking up the same expression again in v. 5; cf. Jer. 13:7, 10).13 Similar arguments are used in Ezk. 17:7, 9 (cf. Ps. 1:3 for this imagery). Jer. 22:30 portrays Jehoiachin as a man without good fortune who succeeded at nothing his entire life; moreover, the same will apply to his descendants on the Davidic throne (cf. again in 13:7, 10 how Jeremiah’s loincloth “is good for nothing”). According to Dnl. 11:27, the intrigues of Antiochus III and Ptolemy VI “shall not succeed, since an end will come at the time appointed” (by Yahweh, who is, however, not mentioned directly).14

2. Hiphil

a. With Human Subjects. Only a few OT passages remark that human beings (can) make something succeed (ṣlḥ hiphil). Although the construction of the temple (Ezr. 5:8; 6:14) or of city fortifications (2 Ch. 14:6[7])15 does move forward successfully, it is clear that Yahweh is providing the aid necessary for such progress and success. The same applies to Dnl. 3:30 and 6:29(28). Hence the wise should not fret over or envy those who prosper and succeed (Ps. 37:7; Sir. 9:12; cf. Sir. 41:1). And even though the eleventh horn (the arrogant king Antiochus IV) does indeed “succeed” at some things (Dnl. 8:12, 24, 25), God will certainly impose limitations (cf. Dnl. 11:36b). In the accusation of Jer. 5:28, the negation of the immediately preceding clause (lōʾ-dānû) also applies to the subsequent yaṣlîḥû.16
The respect and success Solomon enjoys (according to 1 Ch. 29:23; 2 Ch. 7:11) attests yet again the Chronicler’s inclination to use the verb ṣlḥ hiphil, an inclination already evident in the remark concerning the construction of city fortifications (2 Ch. 14:6[7]; see above) and underscored by the absence of any parallels in Kings. Hezekiah also “succeeded” in everything because of his faith (2 Ch. 31:21; 32:30). Those who seek God17 “succeed” (2 Ch. 14:6[7]; 26:5; 31:21), just as do those who keep Yahweh’s law (1 Ch. 22:13; cf. Ps. 1:3 and Josh. 1:8). By contrast, the opposite behavior results in a lack of success (2 Ch. 24:20). Here the Chronicler is accommodating the use of ṣlḥ to his interest in the act-consequence schema, closely coupling piety with the success of construction projects and military undertakings.18 Here too it is ultimately Yahweh who is responsible for that success even though such is not explicitly stated. The same applies to Prov. 28:13, according to which “no one who conceals transgressions” will be successful.
Finally, the supplications and petitions in Ps. 118:25 and Neh. 1:11 make clear that earthly success is ultimately viewed as coming from Yahweh.

b. With Yahweh/God as Subject. In both straight narrative and promises, ṣlḥ with Yahweh as the explicit subject is used to interpret and understand certain events as the result or as part of divine guidance. Such is the case in Gen. 24, where ṣlḥ hiphil functions virtually as a leitmotif (vv. 21, 40, 42, 56), and in Gen. 39:2, 3, 23, and Josh. 1:8, the last of which again links the notion with loyalty to the Torah (cf. Ps. 1:3).
The combination of ṣlḥ hiphil and the assertion that Yahweh was “with” someone19 (Gen. 39:2, 3, 23) also occurs in 1 Ch. 22:11; 2 Ch. 13:12. The interpretive remark “Yahweh will give it into the hand” is used in 1 K. 22:12, 15; cf. 2 Ch. 18:11, 14 as parallels. It comes as no surprise that in this connection ṣlḥ is often associated with a person’s “way”20 (in the concrete sense as the path from A to B in Jgs. 18:5?; cf. the figurative use in Gen. 24:21, 40, 42, 56; Josh. 1:8; Isa. 48:15 [Cyrus]; also Dt. 28:29; cf. also 11QT 58:21).
This particular understanding of divine guidance is also evident, in an even more figurative sense, in Isa. 55:11 (Yahweh’s word “succeeds”); Neh. 2:20; and part of a war address in 2 Ch. 20:20 that can be compared to Isa. 7:9. Sir. 39:18 probably also belongs in this context.
Of course, Yahweh can also choose not to allow something to succeed. In this capacity, he may be mentioned directly or indirectly as the subject, as in the curse in Dt. 28:29, or in the oracles of judgment in Jer. 2:37; 32:5. 2 Ch. 13:12 speaks in this way about Israel’s war against Judah, which Yahweh (v. 10) will not allow to succeed.

IV. Qumran and LXX. The 4 occurrences of this root in the Qumran writings follow OT usage. CD 13:21 (and probably also the fragment 1Q27 fr. 1, II:5) speaks about how someone will “not succeed,” the reference being to an opponent of the Qumran community or to someone similarly negatively qualified. 11QT 58:21 associates the verb in the hiphil21 with success “in all his ways on which he has set out.” 4Q381 48:3 uses the verb in connection with the (new) creation when the petitioner pleads for success “through the breath of your mouth.”
The LXX translates ṣlḥ largely with euodoún (and its derivatives)22 and with hállesthai (and its derivatives; esp. in connection with the expression “Yahweh’s/God’s spirit comes upon someone”). More than ten additional lexemes are used for rendering more precise semantic nuances in individual passages.

NIDOTTE

צָלַח (ṣālaḥ I), q. be successful, be prosperous, be powerful (#7502); hi. make successful, make prosperous (#7503).

ANE The root צלח is attested in Phoen. and Pun. ṣlḥ, prosper, in Arab., ṣalaḥa, be in good condition, prosper, and in Aram., צְלַח, be successful, make prosperous. Cf. Tigre sälḥa, succeed, prosper. See also its use in biblical Aram. (Ezra 5:8; 6:14; Dan 3:30; 6:29).

OT 1. In the OT, the Heb. term צָלַח, be successful or make successful, is used mainly as a vb. and occurs a total of 65× (25× in q. and 40× in hi.). It refers to successful activities in different areas of life, usually in the sense of accomplishing effectively what is intended. Besides describing a human or divine action, the vb. is also used with various subjects: a tree (thrives, Ps 1:3; Ezek 17:9), a weapon (prospers, Isa 54:17), a journey (succeeds, Judg 18:5), a waistcloth (is useful, Jer 13:7). Idiomatically, the vb. is used 7× in q. with עַל or אֵל to describe God’s Spirit “coming upon” his chosen one to empower the person for service, e.g., Samson (Judg 14:6), Saul (1 Sam 10:6), and David (16:13). The same expression is employed for “an evil spirit from God” (18:10). The hi. vb. is often followed by דֶּרֶךְ, way (8×), to describe making successful a journey or career.
2. Theologically, צָלַח emphasizes that God alone is the one who gives success, an emphasis well summarized in Nehemiah’s words: “The God of heaven will give us success” (Neh 2:20). He gives success to those who obey his law (Josh 1:8; 1 Chron 22:13; Ps 1:3) and promises that his word will not return empty but what he desires will succeed (Isa 55:11). His will succeeds in the hand of the Suffering Servant (Isa 53:10). Though the wicked may also prosper (Ps 37:7; Jer 5:28; 12:1; Dan 11:27), their success is temporary and will be destroyed in time. It is important to note that success is often stated as merely God’s grace, e.g., the reason for Joseph’s success was simply stated as “the LORD was with Joseph” (Gen 39:2–3). God grants success to those who seek him diligently (2 Chron 26:5), to those who depend on his mercy and pray to him e.g., Abraham’s servant (Gen 24:21, 40), Nehemiah (Neh 1:11), and the psalmist in Ps 118:25.

P-B Among the DSS, the term צָלַח is used in the epilogue of the Damascus Rule (13:21) to warn those who do not hold to the statutes set forth in the scroll that they will not “succeed” (or “thrive”) in living in the land when the messianic age arrives. The LXX usually translates the vb. as ἐυδόω. In Mish. Heb, the meaning “succeed/prosper” is still common to the root (see Jastrow 2:1283).

See Success, skill

BIBLIOGRAPHY
THAT 2:551–56; TWOT 2:766; E. Puech, “Sur la racine ṣlḥ en hébreu et en araméen,” Semitica 21, 1971, 5–19; H. Tawil, “Hebrew צלח / הצליח Akkadian ešeru / ššuru: A Lexicographical Note,” JBL 95, 1976, 405–13.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993152#Comment_993152

Particularly comparing the Kittel's NT with Silva ?

Kittel is very out of date now. Silva's pretty good IMO.

Another random comparison (c:

Silva

ἀσέλγεια G816 (aselgeia), licentiousness, lewdness, indecency

Concept: Immorality

GL This noun, whose etym. is uncertain, occurs infreq. in the class. period (e.g., 3× in Isocr., 1× in Plato, 2× in Aristot.), although Demosth. uses it a dozen times; it becomes more common in the Hel. age. The term can often be transl. “insolence, insolent act, outrage” and is applied, e.g., to violent behavior as a manifestation of arrogance; it is used alongside ὕβρις G5615, “violence, insolence” (Demosth. Con. [= Or. 54] 2 et al.), ὠμότης, “rawness, cruelty” (id. mid. [= Or. 21] 88], ὑπερηφανία G5661, “pride, arrogance” (ibid. 137), etc. More broadly, ἀσέλγεια indicates “licentiousness,” i.e., lack of moral restraint, and as such it can be applied specifically to immoral behavior; e.g., Polyb. comments regarding Perseus that, unlike his father, he stayed away from τὴν ἀσέλγειαν τήν τε περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὴν περὶ τοὺς πότους, “lack of control both concerning women and concerning drink” (25.3.7; cf. also 36.15.4). It should be noted, however, that here and in other comparable passages the sexual element is conveyed by the context, not by the word itself. Also attested are both the adj. ἀσελγής (“licentious”) and, less freq., the vb. ἀσελγαίνω (“to behave licentiously”).

JL In the LXX ἀσέλγεια occurs only twice, both times in the Apoc. (3 Macc 2:26 [of Ptolemy’s dissolute behavior]; Wis 14:26 [with μοιχεία G3657, “adultery,” and other terms dealing with sexual immorality]). The term is used by Jos. 10×, in some instances of intemperate behavior generally (e.g., A.J. 8.252), but other times with ref. to sexual conduct (e.g., B.J. 2.121). Philo uses it 3×, and at least two of the occurrences indicate lustful immorality (Mos. 1.3 [general profligacy?], 305; Spec. 3.23; cf. also Sib. Or. 2.279 [general sense in 8.381]). It is evident that among Jewish authors the use of the term in sexual contexts became more prominent, to the point that the word itself could convey the meaning “lack of restraint in sexual behavior, sexual immorality, lewdness.” The adj. ἀσελγής occurs 3× in Jos. (A.J. 13.70; B.J. 5.413; C. Ap. 2.244 [the last one sexual]), 2× in Philo (Post. 156 [general]; Ios. 51 [sexual]), and once in other JL (T. Levi 17.11[prob. sexual]). The vb. ἀσελγαίνω occurs only in Jos. (A.J. 17.121 [drinking and immoral conduct with women]; B.J. 1.568 [general]).

NT The word occurs 10× in the NT, all but one instance (Mark 7:22) being found in the Epistles (4× in the Pauline corpus, 4× in the Petrine letters, once in Jude). Considering the brevity of the epistolary material in the NT, these figures indicate a significantly greater relative freq. than in most other writings (the word does occur over 30× in Cassius Dio, and later it is used often by Christian authors). The general meaning “lack of moral restraint” is poss. in Mark 7:22 (in a list next to “deceit” and “envy”) and Eph 4:19 (unless the presence of ἀκαθαρσία G174 in the context indicates otherwise), but in every other passage the term is found either next to words that explicitly refer to sexual immorality (Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; 1 Pet 4:3 [here perhaps “profligacy”]; 2 Pet 2:18) or in contexts that indicate the same (2 Pet 2:7, 18 [cf. vv. 13–14]; Jude 4 [cf. vv. 7–8]).

Kittel

† ἀσέλγεια

“License.”1 mostly in the physical sphere: Polyb., XXXVI, 15, 4: περὶ τὰς σωματι κὰς ἐπιθυμίας; cf. LXX Wis. 14:26; 3 Macc. 2:26; but figuratively also of the soul: Demosth., 21, 1 (with ὕβρις); Philodem. Lib., 42, 12 (anton. κολακεία).

In the NT only the older and sensual sense of “voluptuousness” or “debauchery” is relevant (Mk. 7:22). Man necessarily falls victim to this when cut off from God. It characterises Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pt. 2:7) and the pagan world generally (Eph. 4:19), also heresy and apostasy (Jd. 4; 2 Pt. 2:2, 18). The special sense of sexual excess is probable in Gl. 5:19 and certain in R. 13:13; 2 C. 12:21; 2 Pt. 2:2, 18; as also in Herm. m., 12, 4, 6; s., 9, 15, 3; v., 2, 2, 2; 3, 7, 2.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993159#Comment_993159

So Mark, in your opinion, if I am doing a study on the development of a Greek word- specifically monogenese, what resource do you think is most helpful at looking at its development and use since (or including) Apostolic times? The usual suspects- BDAG, Kittel, etc. dont really deal with the early times of its use, they all seem to be post- Nicea with their dealing with the term. Would Silva aid in this? What about this Brill resource-

Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2 vols.)?

What about LSJ?

Thoughts?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993163#Comment_993163

Would Silva aid in this?

The relevant part of Silva says pretty much the same as von Wahlde. I think that answers your question on how it came to be translated as "only begotten":

4 The compound μονογενής is used by Luke 3×, namely, with ref. to the only son of the widow from Nain (Luke 7:12), Jairus’s only daughter (8:42), and the only child who was demon-possessed (9:38). In the letter to the Hebrews it is applied to Isaac (Heb 11:17). The remaining 5 occurrences are found in the writings of John, the only author who uses the term as a Christological title (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; cf. ἀγαπητός in Matt 3:17 par.; Paul uses “his own son” [τὸν ἑαυτὸν ὑιόν in Rom 8:3 and τοῦ ἰδίου ὑιοῦ in 8:32; cf. Acts 20:28]).

As applied to Jesus, μονογενής clearly is used to mark him out uniquely above all earthly and heavenly beings. The rendering “only-begotten” goes back to Jerome, who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made. Although the vb. γεννάω G1164, “to beget,” is common in the Johannine writings, it is not normally applied to Jesus (the only exceptions are John 18:37; 1 John 5:18b), and in any case μονογενής is formed from the noun γένος (see above, GL), not from the vb. γεννάω (although both terms are ultimately derived from γίνομαι G1181, “to become, be born,” etc.”). Thus the meaning of the compound is “of a single kind” (it is used in this sense of the Phoenix, 1 Clem. 25.2).

To be sure, the identification of Jesus as μονογενής does allude to his origin as Son of God (cf. esp. John 1:14, 18) and poss. also to the notion of begetting (cf. F. Büchsel in TDNT 4:741). The primary focus, however, is soteriological (3:14–18; 1 John 4:9–10). Thus the meaning of the term is centered “in the Personal existence of the Son, and not in the Generation of the Son” (B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St John [1883], 170; see also D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72 [1953]: 213–19). In addition, John makes the point that Jesus, as μονογενής, is the one who can say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

William McFarland

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993167#Comment_993167

I have Silva and like it a lot.

As for looking into monogenese I would recommend the book Retrieving Eternal Generation which has a series of essays on the Son's eternal generation and a couple of them address the understanding of monogenese.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993177#Comment_993177

I have Silva and like it a lot.

As for looking into monogenese I would recommend the book Retrieving Eternal Generation which has a series of essays on the Son's eternal generation and a couple of them address the understanding of monogenese.

It is interesting you suggested this- I just swapped my recently purchased Justin Martyr in Greek for this very resource earlier today! The only hindrance to this is it is only one side of the debate. Im trying my best to go Ad Fontes on this and find the source. The article Mark posted traces back to Jerome, but of course, the other was correct in tracing it back to Origen- which is where the council of Nicea (325) and Jerome got it... But I was wanting to see if it goes back before Origen. I think Justin may have hinted at it, but not sure. The challenge of course is with translation. Since Jerome and Nicea, almost every English translates the word "only begotten"... Modern versions are reverting back (thanks to D. Moody), but the ship has sailed. What does Only Begotten mean-... really what does "eternal generation" mean? I know what the commentators say, and the lexicons, but what is the idea behind the poorly chosen English words (in my opinion)? And where did it come from? What evidence is there it was there before Origen, or even with Origen- linquistically? These are the questions I have been trying to ask.

William McFarland

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993189#Comment_993189

The whole book is a defense of eternal generation written by different authors. They don't always agree with other about the specifics. Chapter 5 by Lee Irons deals specifically with monogenese (he also has more on the web) but other chapters come at it from different positions. And there is a great variety of traditions represented (UMC, PCA, RC, among others). I hope you enjoy the book.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993194#Comment_993194

Chapter 5 by Lee Irons deals specifically with monogenese (he also has more on the web) but other chapters come at it from different positions.

I have read the book and benefited from it. Please could you provide a link to his online material on monogenese. Thanks in advance.

William McFarland

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993228#Comment_993228

Ted,

His main website is upper-register.typepad.com, click on the category "Eternal Generation of the Son"

Also, if you do a search lee irons only begotten you will get other hits.

Enjoy

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993228#Comment_993228

Please could you provide a link to his online material on monogenese. Thanks in advance.

A quick Google search got me here:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten/

William McFarland

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993270#Comment_993270

There is also his website upper-register.typepad.com, select the Eternal Generation of the Son category for more information.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/993274#Comment_993274

There is also his website upper-register.typepad.com, select the Eternal Generation of the Son category for more information.

A quick Google search got me here:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten/

Many thanks William & Michael.