A serious questions for the Jehovah's Witnesses on these threads.

[The Learner]

No one can argue that the son is not divine, but divinity doesn’t necessarily mean deity.
The Greek word for “god” is “theos” which can mean “a god or goddess or deity or divinity”….the only way that the Greeks had to identify the one nameless God of the Jews was with the definite article, so in calling Jesus “theos” without the definite article indicates a divine nature or divine authority such as was given to the judges in Israel….not that he was God.
Jehovah himself referred to them as “gods”, but no one can argue that they are God incarnate. (John 10:31-36)


That authority was given to him by his God and Father. (Matthew 28:18) If he was God, he would need nothing to be given him because he would already possess it.

You see, you said it…..he “inherited” all that was given to him….he did not possess it until it was given to him. I think you misunderstand the difference between deity and divinity…..there is only one God who begat a son. No one knows how long the son has been in existence because he was the first and only direct creation of his Father, making him unique among many “sons of God” because all creation was brought into existence through the agency of this “firstborn” son. (Col 1:15-17; John 1:2-3; Rev 3:14)


He is and always has been a “servant” of his God and Father. (Acts 4:27) That does not diminish him in any way because that is the Jesus we read about in scripture…..the one who always promoted his Father’s worship, but did not accept worship for himself…..he did accept obeisance however, as the son of God, he was to be respected and given due honor, but never worship as if he was God….or even equal to him in any way. When rendered to a human “pro·sky·neʹo” means “obeisance”…...it is only “worship” when rendered to God.

Do you remember a time when in the British and Australian legal system, a judge was addressed as “Your Worship”? Americans say “Your Honor”….which means the same thing.

divine​

[ dih-vahyn ]SHOW IPA

See synonyms for: divinedivinerdiviningdivinely on Thesaurus.com

---

adjective,di·vin·er, di·vin·est.

1. of or relating to a god, especially the Supreme Being.
2. addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred:divine worship.

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   

SEE MORE
noun

1. a theologian; scholar in religion.
2. a priest or member of the clergy.

SEE MORE
verb (used with object),di·vined, di·vin·ing.

1. to discover or declare (something obscure or in the future) by divination; prophesy.
2. to discover (water, metal, etc.) by means of a divining rod.
3. Divine Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
4. 
   

 

[The Learner]

θεός | billmounce.com

a deity, Acts 7:43; 1 Cor. 8:5; an idol, Acts 7:40; God, the true God, Mt. 3:9, et al. freq.; God, possessed of true godhead, Jn. 1:1; Rom. 9:5; from the Hebrew, applied to potentates, Jn. 10:34, 35; τῶ θεῶ, an intensive term, from the Hebrew, exceedingly, Acts 7:20, and, perhaps, 2 Cor. 10:4

www.billmounce.com

θεός | billmounce.com

a deity, Acts 7:43; 1 Cor. 8:5; an idol, Acts 7:40; God, the true God, Mt. 3:9, et al. freq.; God, possessed of true godhead, Jn. 1:1; Rom. 9:5; from the Hebrew, applied to potentates, Jn. 10:34, 35; τῶ θεῶ, an intensive term, from the Hebrew, exceedingly, Acts 7:20, and, perhaps, 2 Cor. 10:4

www.billmounce.com

en arch hn`o logoV, kai`o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn`o logoV.

EN ARCHÊ ÊN hO LOGOS, KAI hO LOGOS ÊN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS.

In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and the Word was God.


ARCHÊ

• Beginning, origin in the abs[olute] sense (BAGD).
• 1 John has the phrases "that which was from the beginning" (1:1) and "he who was from the beginning" (2:13-14) for the Logos who has become perceptible to the disciples but is eternally preexistent, since it is God himself who here gives himself to us. "In the beginning" in Jn. 1:1 says this specifically of the Logos; the Logos is before all time, so that no temporal statements can be made about him. Eternal preexistence is plainly implied (TDNT).

ÊN ("was") is the indicative imperfect active form of the verb EIMI, signifying continuous or linear existence in past time. The contextual contrast is between ÊN and EGENETO ("to become"), the continuous preexistence of the LOGOS (v. 1) and the LOGOS becoming flesh at a specific point in time (v. 14). "In the beginning, the LOGOS already was."

The preexistence of the Word is strongly brought out by the phrase en arch hn`o logoV (en arche en ho logos, "in the beginning was the word"). Arch (arche) according to H. Bietenhard "is an important term in Gk. philosophy," which means, among other things, "starting point, original beginning" (DNTT, 1:164). By itself, this may not seem too significant, for few would debate that we are dealing with the "original beginning." It is the presence of the verb hn (en, "was") that brings out the importance of this phrase. Literally, it could and should be rendered "When the beginning began, the Word was already there." This is the sense of en which is in the imperfect tense and implies continuing existence in the past. So before the beginning began, the Word was already in existence. This is tantamount to saying that the Word predates time or Creation (EBC).

PROS

• with the acc[usative] of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc. (which require one to be conceived of as always turned towards one)...after EIMI...Jn i.1 (Thayer).
• be (in company) with someone...J 1:1f (BAGD).
• a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships...'the Word was with God' Jn 1:1 (Louw & Nida)

Some commentators, such as JFB, above, see PROS in this verse as shorthand for the idiomatic expression PROSÔPON PROS PROSÔPON (literally "face to face", RWP, cf., Moulton). This seems view is given weight by the context, in which the Son is said to be "in the bosom of the Father" (v. 18), and thus in the ideal position to declare the Father to the world.

TON THEON, literally "the God," is in the accusative case, which makes this the direct object of the second clause (hO LOGOS is in the nominative, and is thus the subject). There is no difference in meaning between THEON here and THEOS in the next clause; they are the same word in different cases. The article TON (accusative form of hO) indicates a personal distinction. As Karl Rahner and others have noted, the articular form of THEOS in the New Testament usually refers to the Father (Rahner, p. 146; Harris, Jesus, p. 47). Thus, saying "the Word was with (the) God" is the same as saying "the Word was with the Father."

THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS. The first task of the translator faced with this clause is to determine the subject. In most sentences or clauses (such as John 1:1b), the noun in the nominative case is the subject. The noun in the accusative case is the direct object. However, in Greek, "copulative" verbs (generally a form of "to be" or "to become") take the nominative case, not the accusative. Technically, a copulative verb does not ascribe an action, but predicates something about the subject. The "object" of a copulative verb, therefore, is called the "Predicate Nominative (PN)," not the direct object. As we have seen, ÊN is a form of the verb "to be." Therefore, both THEOS and LOGOS are in the nominative case - one is the subject and the other the PN. In such cases, if one noun has the article and the other does not, the noun with the article is the subject (see Dana and Mantey, p. 148; McGaughy, p. 50; etc.). Thus, hO LOGOS is the subject of the sentence; THEOS is the PN. "The Word was God," not "God was the Word." While the latter is not impossible from the standpoint of pure grammar, McGaughy's study makes it highly unlikely.

So, John is telling us something about the LOGOS - that He is THEOS. The $64,000 question, then, is what does John mean by this? Since THEOS is anarthrous, does he mean that the Word was "a god" (indefinite)? Or does he mean that the Word is God (definite)? Or does he mean that the Word has all the qualities and attributes of God (qualitative)? To answer this essential question, we will need to review how several prominent grammarians have viewed this issue.

 

[The Learner]

Pre-Colwell

Before E.C. Colwell wrote his landmark study (see below), many scholars viewed THEOS in John 1:1c as qualitative:

"It is necessarily without the article (qeoV not`o qeoV) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the WOrd and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sebellianism to say 'the Word was o qeoV" (Westcott).

"`o qeoV hn`o logoV (convertible terms) would have been pure Sabellianism.... The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea" (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767-768).

"QeoV hn`o logoV emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature" (Dana and Mantey, p. 140).

"QeoV without the article signifies divine essence, or the generic idea of God in distinction from man and angel; as sarx, ver. 14, signifies the human essence or nature of the Logos" (Lange)

"QeoV sine artic. essentialieter, cum artic. personaliter" (Chemnitz).

"QeoV must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, not`o qeoV ,'the Father,' in Person....as in sarx egeneto [John 1:14], sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in qeoV hn, qeoV expresses that essence which was His - that He was very God. So that this verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity, - was with God (the Father), - and was Himself God" (Alford).

It is important to note that these scholars did not use the term "qualitative" to describe their view of THEOS in John 1:1c. Prior to Phillip B. Harner's study of qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns (see below), "qualitative" nouns were viewed more or less as indefinite nouns. These scholars would probably have described THEOS as definite, but not as a convertible term with hO THEOS in John 1:1b. Indeed, Julius Mantey, in his famous letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, cites Colwell's study as 'proving' that THEOS in 1:1c is definite, though it is clear from what he wrote in his Manual Grammar several years before that by this he does not see definiteness as requiring convertibility. Convertible terms are 100% equivalent, such as "Jesus" and "Son of God" in this sentence: "Jesus is the Son of God." We can reverse the terms without changing the meaning: "The Son of God is Jesus." If THEOS in 1:1c is convertible with hO LOGOS, John would be teaching that the LOGOS is 100% equivalent to the hO THEOS of 1:1b, which would be conducive to some form of Modalism.1



These scholars all argue that the anarthrous PN preceding the copulative verb stresses the nature of THEOS. As we will see, this is precisely the way later scholars described a "qualitative" noun - one that stresses the qualities, attributes, or nature of the noun.



Colwell's Rule

In 1933, E.C. Colwell published his now famous study of the use of the article with PNs occurring both before and after the verb. Colwell began by identifying a number of PNs that he believed were definite by virtue of the context. He then performed a statistical analysis of their occurrence - either before or after the verb - and with the article or without. He found that 87% of definite PNs before the verb occurred without the article. He "tentatively" offers a rule that, in part, stipulates: "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article" (Colwell, p. 20). Colwell reasons:



But it is in the realm of translation and interpretation that the data presented here have their most valuable application. They show that a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a "qualitative" noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article (IBID, p. 20).

 

[The Learner]

Thus, Colwell's study indicates that THEOS in John 1:1c should not be translated as an indefinite noun solely on the basis of the absence of the article. Colwell, like most grammarians prior to Harner (see below), considered "qualitative" nouns to be more or less equivalent to indefinite nouns. Recall, though, that Colwell studied only nouns that he had identified as definite based on the context - he did not study all nouns in the New Testament. Thus, some scholars have questioned Colwell's further application of his rule:

Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article.

The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Kai qeoV hn`o logoV looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (IBID, p. 21).

Based on his data gathered from known definite nouns, Colwell extrapolated that more or less the same statistical balance would prove true with nouns that were exegetically questionable. As we shall see below, subsequent studies have called this extrapolation into question, particularly those that emphasize qualitativeness as a semantic force independent of definiteness or indefiniteness.

At the same time, the vast majority of commentators (e.g., Carson) and some grammarians (e.g., Metzger) have accepted Colwell's conclusions regarding John 1:1, as has at least one major study (see Lane McGaughy, below). As with their earlier counterparts, these more recent scholars do not perceive definiteness as requiring convertibility, but rather emphasize that the nature of THEOS is ascribed to the Word: "The 'Word does not Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him'" (Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 45, quoted in Carson, p. 117). They are thus not far semantically or exegetically from those who argue for a qualitative or qualitative-definite semantic force for THEOS in 1:1c.

 

[The Learner]

Maximilian Zerwick
Zerwick's introductory grammar first appeared in Latin in 1944. A revised and expanded edition was published in 1960, and an English translation with further additions followed three years later. Zerwick admits that Colwell has presented "not a few persuasive examples" that definite nouns preceding the verb usually appear without the article, but he cautions: "[Colwell's] theory has its appeal, but it is not easy to admit that the reason for this use of the article it to be found in a circumstance (order of words) which seems to belong to an altogether different category' (Zerwick, p. 56), Zerwick echoes other grammarians in viewing nouns without the article as being primarily qualitative:

The omission of the article shows that the speaker regards the person or thing not so much as this or that person or thing, but rather as such a person or thing, i.e. regards not the individual but rather nature or quality. (Zerwick, p. 55, emphasis in original).

Zerwick conflates qualitative and indefinite nouns into a single category and places THEOS in John 1:1c in that category:

for in the nature of things, the predicate commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo 1,1 kai qeoV hn`o logoV, which attributes to the Word the divine nature (`o qeoV en`o logoV, at least in NT usage, would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father, since the latter is`o qeoV ) (IBID).

In fact, this one mention of "class" is the only time Zerwick may be inferred to understand indefiniteness to be present in an anarthrous noun at all. His entire discussion of the non-use of the article centers on the qualitative aspects ascribed to the subject. Thus, for Zerwick, nouns are either definite or qualitative, and membership in a class is secondary to the attributes, characteristics, or qualities ascribed to the subject when the author omits the article.

Blass, Debrunner, and Funk
The Blass and Debrunner grammar, translated and revised by Robert Funk, generally endorses Colwell's study, but notes: "[Colwell] deals only with sentences in which the verb appears and only with nouns that are unambiguously definite" (BDF, p. 143). The latter point will be developed in greater detail by Dixon (see below) with regard to the application of Colwell's Rule and John 1:1c. Blass and Debrunner have little to say about predicate nouns that lack the article, but in reference to Mark 7:15 remark: "the idea which runs through the whole discourse is that there really is something which produces this effect, and this given category is now referred to a particular subject" (IBID). Thus, it may be inferred that Blass and Debrunner view anarthrous nouns in much the same was as Zerwick, primarily ascribing qualities or characteristics to the subject rather than membership in a class (the category itself is "referred" to the subject - the subject is not said to be placed in the category).

 

[The Learner]

Lane McGaughy
McGaughy's published dissertation on the use of the Greek verb EINAI ("to be") has been widely recognized for its thoroughness. McGaughy examines Colwell's statistics and finds several of the "exceptions" to his rule that Colwell noted are, in fact, not exceptions at all. Thus several scholars have recognized McGaughy as supporting Colwell's conclusion that THEOS in John 1:1c is definite (e.g., Carson, p. 137) or has even given it greater weight (e.g., Grudem, p. 234, n. 12 ). McGaughy says that John 1:1 "should be translated 'And the Word was God' rather than 'And the Word was divine'" (McGaughy, p. 77). He cites Zerwick approvingly: "A noun preceding the verb and lacking the article should not be regarded as 'qualitative' on the mere grounds of the absence of the article" (IBID). Interestingly, McGaughy has not, to my knowledge, addressed Harner's article (which appeared one year after McGaughy's study), which distinguishes between a qualitative meaning and the weaker adjectival "divine" that McGaughy argues against.

Phillip B. Harner
The impact of Phillip B. Harner's study of qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns on the interpretation of John 1:1 cannot be overemphasized. Harner noted that "Colwell was almost entirely concerned with the question whether anarthrous predicate nouns were definite or indefinite, and he did not discuss at any length the problem of their qualitative significance" (Harner, p. 76). Again, Colwell, like most older grammarians, saw qualitative nouns as more or less the same as indefinite nouns.

Harner argues that qualitativeness should be considered a semantic force in its own right:

This study will suggest that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important that the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite (IBID, p. 75).

Harner says that qualitativeness may coexist with either a definite or indefinite semantic force. Though not explicitly stated, a close reading also indicates that he believed qualitativeness may exist by itself. When considering Mark 12:35, Harner says, "the predicate noun could be interpreted as defininte, indefinite, or qualitative, depending on the particular meaning or emphasis which we understand the passage to have" (IBID, p. 79).

Harner found that 80% of anarthrous pre-verbal PNs in Mark and John are qualitative and 20% are definite. None are exclusively indefinite, which supports Colwell's conclusion as well. Harner notes that some qualitative nouns, such as HAMARTÔLOS ("sinner") in John 8:31, though best translated with the indefinite article due to English idiom, should actually be considered qualitative:

Again the qualitative aspect of the predicate is most prominent; they [the Jews] think that Jesus has the nature or character of one who is "sinner." There is no basis for regarding the predicate as definite, although in this instance we would probably use the indefinite article in English translation (IBID, p. 83).

Harner stresses that when considering whether a pre-verbal predicate noun is definite, indefinite, or qualitative, it is important to consider how the writer might have expressed his intentions using another, and possibly less ambiguous, syntax as well as what he actually wrote. Thus, with John 1:1c, Harner notes the following possibilities:

A. hO LOGOS ÊN hO THEOS
B. THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS
C. hO LOGOS THEOS ÊN
D. hO LOGOS ÊN THEOS
E. hO LOGOS ÊN THEIOS

 

[The Learner]

Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that`o logoV hn proV ton qeon. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of "personal" differentiation, between the two (IBID, p. 84-85).

So, Harner, in agreement with Robertson, Dana & Mantey, and most other scholars cited above, notes that if both THEOS and LOGOS were articular, the two terms would be convertible. Since John did not use this syntax, his intended meaning must be something else. Harner continues:

Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was "divine," without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos (IBID).

Thus, Harner notes that had John wished to express the idea that the LOGOS was "a god," or a divine being distinct from hO THEOS, he had at least two unambiguous ways of doing so. Since he did not, we may conclude that John in all likelihood chose the syntax he did because he wished to express something else with regard to the LOGOS.

Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1 (IBID).

Note here that Harner equates a definite semantic force in a pre-verbal PN without the article to an articular noun. He sees both forms as examples of a convertible proposition. This is the major point of contention between scholars who regard THEOS in 1:1c as definite as opposed to those who see it as qualitative. Scholars on both sides interpret this clause in more or less the same way, as Harner himself notes: "In many cases their [commentators'] interpretations agree with the explanation that is given above" (IBID). Those who agree with Harner reject a definite force because they view it as semantically the same as a convertible proposition, which would present problems with regard to the previous clause (1:1b). Those who view THEOS as definite believe the absence of the article precludes the possibility of convertibility. Yet both generally agree that the meaning of 1:1c is as Harner himself translates it: "The Word had the same nature as God" (IBID, p. 87).

Harner continues:

As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos had the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis (IBID, p. 85).

Thus, Harner says that not only is John attributing the nature of THEOS to the LOGOS, but emphasizes that nature by placing THEOS at the head of the clause. The emphasis of THEOS would seem unaccountable if John intended an indefinite nuance, but is perfectly understandable if THEOS is qualitative, signifying that the Son's nature is that of God.

 

[The Learner]

Paul Dixon
Dixon's study is the first of several to challenge the popular application of Colwell's rule. Dixon notes that Colwell's data begins with definite PNs and demonstrates that these usually lack the article. However, those using the rule to "prove" that THEOS in John 1:1c is definite (including Colwell himself!) are not actually citing Colwell's rule, but it's converse:

The rule does not say: an anarthrous predicate nominative which precedes the verb is definite. This is the converse of Colwell's rule and as such is not a valid inference....from the statement "Definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb are anarthrous," it is not valid to infer "Anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb are definite" (Dixon, pp. 11-12).

Colwell himself affirmed that the converse of the rule was as valid as the rule itself, and said that anarthrous pre-verbal PNs would normally be definite (Wallace, p. 259). Like Harner, Dixon considers qualitativeness a semantic force in addition to definiteness and indefiniteness. While Harner says that qualitativeness may exist either independently or along with definiteness or indefiniteness, Dixon argues that only one of these three semantic forces is the author's intended meaning in any given instance:

The whole notion that a noun can have two or more simultaneous nuances as used in a particular context is rather like saying a word can have two or more simultaneous meanings when used in a particular context. There is no question that a word can have two or more meanings, but when it is actually used by an author it almost always has a particular meaning, unless he is intentionally employing a double entendre (perhaps like KEFALÊN in 1 Cor 11:5). Likewise, we can assume an author has a particular nuance of a noun being used and is not intentionally being ambiguous so as to confuse the reader (Dixon, message posted on b-greek discussion list on the Internet, Friday, March 2, 2001).

Dixon's statistical methodology, unlike Colwells', was to begin with anarthrous PNs (as opposed to only examining those PNs that were definite), and determine the semantic force of each. His statistical analysis substantiates Harner's findings: "When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb it is qualitative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability" (Dixon). Dixon concludes:

We may conclude three things about John 1:1. First, Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule says nothing about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the converse of the rule, and as such is not necessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), we conclude that THEOS in 1:1c stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical probability for THEOS being qualitative, rather than definite or indefinite, is quite high, 94% (IBID).

 

[The Learner]

Daniel B. Wallace
In his intermediate Greek grammar, Wallace accepts Harner's definition of the qualitative semantic force, and provides a number of examples outside of John 1:1. Wallace, like Harner, advocates qualitativeness as a separate semantic category, either coexisting alongside definite or indefinite semantic forces or existing by itself. Citing Harner and Dixon, Wallace concludes that THEOS in John 1:1 is qualitative, and finds the indefinite semantic force the least likely for preverbal predicate nominatives. Though Wallace says that "the Word was divine" may be an acceptable translation, this is only acceptable if we define "divine" in such a way that it is only applied to true Deity. The import of the qualitative force goes well beyond what we commonly would refer to as "divine" in contemporary usage:

The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father (Wallace, p. 269, emphasis in original).

Don Hartley
One of the possible objections to Wallace's advocacy of qualitativeness as by far the most likely semantic force (apart from a concurrent definite or indefinite nuance) is that most of the examples he provides are "mass" nouns. Mass nouns are those that cannot be semantically indefinitized or pluralized (that is, that cannot be used with the indefinite article, and for which there is no plural form). "Flesh," is a mass term - we would not say "a flesh," nor "fleshes." A "count" noun, on the other hand, is a noun that can be used with the indefinite article and for which there is a plural form. "Dog" is a count noun - we can say "a dog," or "dogs." Simply put, a count noun is something that can be counted; a mass term is one that cannot. We can count dogs but not flesh. Some have argued that mass terms differ dramatically from count terms in the semantic force they can convey (it is sometimes argued that count terms must always be definite or indefinite and that there is no such thing as a "qualitative count noun").2 Because it is generally conceded that mass terms can exude a qualitative force, it has been argued that the statistical analyses of Harner and Dixon are weighed unfairly towards qualitative nouns, particularly when applying those statistics to THEOS, which is a count noun.

Don Hartley, a student of Dan Wallace's and research assistant on Wallace's grammar, wrote his Master's of Theology thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary on the topic of Colwell's Construction and mass / count nouns. He also published a paper derived from his thesis. Hartley's methodology is to examine every example of Colwell's Construction in the Greek New Testament. Hartley purposely leaves controversial or questionable nouns out of this sample. He then eliminates all factors that would unfairly weigh the sample towards one semantic force, such as mass terms. He carefully identifies all potential semantic forces - following Wallace, Hartley advocates qualitativeness as either a standalone semantic force, or as one that can coexist alongside definite or indefinite forces. He notes that all mass terms exude a purely qualitative force (John 1:14, for example, does not teach that the Logos became The Flesh or a flesh, but rather "flesh," signifying that all the Logos possesses all the qualities or attributes of "flesh"). He therefore concludes that qualitativeness is a valid semantic category apart from definiteness or indefiniteness, and argues that this force may be applied equally to mass or count terms.

Hartley's results demonstrate that in John's Gospel, a preverbal PN is usually qualitative (56%), as opposed to definite (11%), indefinite (17%), or qualitative-indefinite (17%). He concludes that from the standpoint of pure statistical analysis, THEOS in John 1:1c is most likely qualitative: "Thus, Jesus is God in every sense the Father is" (Hartley, p. 40).

 

[The Learner]

Conclusion
While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.

It is my view that those who argue that the definite semantic force would signify a convertible proposition have the best case (but, see note #2, below). The purely qualitative nuance is well-attested in the Greek New Testament3, as has been demonstrated by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley. The latter has demonstrated its application to both mass and count terms, and thus its application to THEOS in John 1:1c. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that THEOS is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance.

Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:

"In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."4

_______________________________
Notes

1. This objection, raised most forcefully by Harner, assumes a mathematical precision that cannot always be sustained in the pragmatics of language use. While convertible propositions usually signify 100% equivalence between subject and predicate, this need not be the case when they are preceded by an explicit statement denying 100% equivalence ("And the Word was with God"). It is doubtful that the 8th Century scribes who wrote "kai ho theos ên ho logos" in Codex L (Regius) understood what is grammatically a convertible proposition to be tantamount to Modalism. Other explanations are certainly possible, such as understanding theos to be used as a title or proper name, or taking the entire verse as a paradox.

2. This line of argument is addressed in the Jehovah's Witness/John 1:1c section of Other Views Considered (below). It has been thoroughly debated by Don Hartley and Jehovah's Witness apologist, Greg Stafford. I had a brief interaction with Greg Stafford on this subject as well. See also "Theos is a Count Noun").

3. C.f., John 3:6 "He who is born of the flesh is (by nature) flesh; he who is born of the Spirit is (by nature) spirit

4. Cf., Wuest's The New Testament: An Expanded Translation: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity;" and the New English Translation: "and the Word was fully God." Perhaps the most accurate English translation of John 1:1 has been offered by Robert Bowman: "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Deity, and the Word was Deity" (John, p. 27). This translation preserves the use and non-use of the article, and conveys the purely qualitative nuance of the anarthrous theos. The Dana-Mantey grammar offers essentially the same translation, sans the capital letters: "and the word was deity" (p. 148). In Colossians 2:9, Paul uses a different grammatical construction to say much the same thing about Christ's Deity.

 

[The Learner]

Articles
The New World Translation and John 1:1: What the Scholars Really Said Robert Hommel

Jesus as "a god" Alongside God: JWs and John 1:1 Sam Shamoun

Theos is a Count Noun: Is the Word "God" or "a god" in John 1:1c Robert Hommel

Qualitative Nouns: Emphasis or Sense? Robert Hommel

The Early Church Fathers, John 1:1, and the Pre-Existence of Christ Robert Hommel

John 1:1c in the Sahidic Coptic Translation: What the Scholars Really Said Robert Hommel

...
Blogs

John 1:1 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation

Hoskyns and Coptic John 1:1

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - John 1

 

[The Learner]

Jesus was adopted by God for there was a time that Jesus existed but was not God's son.

33 and God has now fulfilled it for us, their descendants, by raising Jesus. This is what the second psalm says about Jesus:

‘You are my Son.
Today I have become your Father.[a]’
34 For God had promised to raise him from the dead, not leaving him to rot in the grave.
Acts 13:33-34 (NLT)

Psalm 2

Easy-to-Read Version

​

2 Why are the nations so angry?
Why are the people making such foolish plans?
2 Their kings and leaders join together
to fight against the Lord and his chosen king.[a]
3 They say, “Let’s rebel against them.
Let’s break free from them!”
4 But the one who rules in heaven laughs at them.
The Lord makes fun of them.
5 He speaks to them in anger,
and it fills them with fear.
6 He says, “I have chosen this man to be king,
and he will rule on Zion, my holy mountain.”
7 Let me tell you about the Lord’s agreement:
He said to me, “Today I have become your father,[b]
and you are my son.
8 If you ask, I will give you the nations.
Everyone on earth will be yours.
9 You will rule over them with great power.
You will scatter your enemies like broken pieces of pottery!”
10 So, kings and rulers, be smart
and learn this lesson.
11 Serve the Lord with fear and trembling.
12 Show that you are loyal to his son,[c]
or the Lord will be angry and destroy you.
He is almost angry enough to do that now,
but those who go to him for protection will be blessed.

Footnotes​

1. Psalm 2:2 his chosen king Or “his anointed one.”
2. Psalm 2:7 I have become your father Literally, “I fathered you.” Originally, this probably meant God was “adopting” the king as his son.
3. Psalm 2:12 Show … his son Literally, “Kiss the son.”

 

[The Learner]

Acts 13

Easy-to-Read Version

​

Barnabas and Saul Given a Special Work​

13 In the church at Antioch there were some prophets and teachers. They were Barnabas, Simeon (also called Niger), Lucius (from the city of Cyrene), Manaen (who had grown up with King Herod[a]), and Saul. 2 These men were all serving the Lord and fasting when the Holy Spirit said to them, “Appoint Barnabas and Saul to do a special work for me. They are the ones I have chosen to do it.”
3 So the church fasted and prayed. They laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them out.

Barnabas and Saul in Cyprus​

4 Barnabas and Saul were sent out by the Holy Spirit. They went to the city of Seleucia. Then they sailed from there to the island of Cyprus. 5 When Barnabas and Saul came to the city of Salamis, they told the message of God in the Jewish synagogues. John Mark was with them to help.
6 They went across the whole island to the city of Paphos. There they met a Jewish man named Barjesus who did magic. He was a false prophet. 7 He always stayed close to Sergius Paulus, who was the governor and a very smart man. He invited Barnabas and Saul to come visit him, because he wanted to hear the message of God. 8 But the magician Elymas (as Barjesus was called in Greek) spoke against them, trying to stop the governor from believing in Jesus. 9 But Saul (also known as Paul), filled with the Holy Spirit, looked hard at Elymas 10 and said, “You son of the devil, full of lies and all kinds of evil tricks! You are an enemy of everything that is right. Will you never stop trying to change the Lord’s truths into lies? 11 Now the Lord will touch you and you will be blind. For a time you will not be able to see anything—not even the light from the sun.”
Then everything became dark for Elymas. He walked around lost. He was trying to find someone to lead him by the hand. 12 When the governor saw this, he believed. He was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.

Paul and Barnabas Go to Antioch in Pisidia​

13 Paul and the people with him sailed away from Paphos. They came to Perga, a city in Pamphylia. There John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. 14 They continued their trip from Perga and went to Antioch, a city near Pisidia.
On the Sabbath day they went into the Jewish synagogue and sat down. 15 The Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets were read. Then the leaders of the synagogue sent a message to Paul and Barnabas: “Brothers, if you have something to say that will help the people here, please speak.”
16 Paul stood up, raised his hand to get their attention, and said, “People of Israel and all you others who worship the true God, please listen to me! 17 The God of Israel chose our ancestors. And during the time our people lived in Egypt as foreigners, he made them great. Then he brought them out of that country with great power. 18 And he was patient with them for 40 years in the desert. 19 God destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan and gave their land to his people. 20 All this happened in about 450 years.
“After this, God gave our people judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. 21 Then the people asked for a king. God gave them Saul, the son of Kish. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. He was king for 40 years. 22 After God took Saul away, God made David their king. This is what God said about David: ‘David, the son of Jesse, is the kind of person who does what pleases me. He will do everything I want him to do.’
23 “As he promised, God has brought one of David’s descendants to Israel to be their Savior. That descendant is Jesus. 24 Before he came, John told all the people of Israel what they should do. He told them to be baptized to show they wanted to change their lives. 25 When John was finishing his work, he said, ‘Who do you think I am? I am not the Messiah.[b] He is coming later, and I am not worthy to be the slave who unties his sandals.’
26 “My brothers, sons in the family of Abraham, and you other people who also worship the true God, listen! The news about this salvation has been sent to us. 27 The Jews living in Jerusalem and their leaders did not realize that Jesus was the Savior. The words the prophets wrote about him were read every Sabbath day, but they did not understand. They condemned Jesus. When they did this, they made the words of the prophets come true. 28 They could not find any real reason why Jesus should die, but they asked Pilate to kill him.
29 “These Jews did all the bad things that the Scriptures said would happen to Jesus. Then they took Jesus down from the cross and put him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him up from death! 31 After this, for many days, those who had gone with Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem saw him. They are now his witnesses to our people.
32 “We tell you the Good News about the promise God made to our ancestors. 33 We are their descendants, and God has made this promise come true for us. God did this by raising Jesus from death. We also read about this in Psalm 2:
‘You are my Son.
Today I have become your Father.’
34 God raised Jesus from death. Jesus will never go back to the grave and become dust. So God said,
‘I will give you the true and holy promises
that I made to David.’
35 But in another Psalm it says,
‘You will not let your Holy One rot in the grave.’
36 “David did God’s will during the time he lived. Then he died and was buried like all his ancestors. And his body did rot in the grave! 37 But the one God raised from death did not rot in the grave. 38-39 Brothers, understand what we are telling you. You can have forgiveness of your sins through this Jesus. The Law of Moses could not free you from your sins. But you can be made right with God if you believe in Jesus. 40 So be careful! Don’t let what the prophets said happen to you:
41 ‘Listen, you people who doubt!
You can wonder, but then go away and die;
because during your time,
I will do something that you will not believe.
You will not believe it,
even if someone explains it to you!’”
42 As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people asked them to come again on the next Sabbath day and tell them more about these things. 43 After the meeting, many of the people followed Paul and Barnabas, including many Jews and people who had changed their religion to be like Jews and worship the true God. Paul and Barnabas encouraged them to continue trusting in God’s grace.
44 On the next Sabbath day, almost all the people in the city came together to hear the word of the Lord. 45 When the Jews there saw all these people, they became very jealous. Shouting insults, they argued against everything Paul said. 46 But Paul and Barnabas spoke very boldly. They said, “We had to tell God’s message to you Jews first, but you refuse to listen. You have made it clear that you are not worthy of having eternal life. So we will now go to those who are not Jews. 47 This is what the Lord told us to do:
‘I have made you a light for the other nations,
to show people all over the world the way to be saved.’”
48 When the non-Jewish people heard Paul say this, they were happy. They gave honor to the message of the Lord, and many of them believed it. These were the ones chosen to have eternal life.
49 And so the message of the Lord was being told throughout the whole country. 50 But the Jews there caused some of the important religious women and the leaders of the city to be angry and turn against Paul and Barnabas and throw them out of town. 51 So Paul and Barnabas shook the dust off their feet.[c] Then they went to the city of Iconium. 52 But the Lord’s followers in Antioch were happy and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Footnotes​

1. Acts 13:1 King Herod Literally, “Herod the tetrarch.” See “ Herod Agrippa I” in the Word List.
2. Acts 13:25 the Messiah Literally, “I” (that is, “he” or “the one”), meaning the chosen one sent by God. Compare Jn. 1:20. See “ Messiah” in the Word List.
3. Acts 13:51 shook the dust off their feet A warning. It showed they were finished talking to these people.

 

[The Learner]

Begotten means created (through the act of procreation). Look it up.

Was Jesus “Begotten” or "Unique"? (John 3:16)​

GREEKPROF​

“Begotten” is the KJV translation of μονογενής in John 3:16. It describes the unique relationship of Jesus to the Father. However, the KJV “begotten” is based on a misunderstanding of how the word was formed. μόνος conveys the idea of “one and only” (“being the only entity in a class,” BDAG) and γενός refers to a specific “class” or “kind.” From γένος, English derives its word “genus,” i.e., “species.”

For μονογενής to convey the idea of “begotten,” μονογενής would have had to be formed from γεννάω (with two nu’s). But μονογενής has a single nu, which means it is formed from γίνομαι, which is formed from the root γεν, which is visible in its cognate noun γένος.
The mistaken translation may have been influenced by the Latin Nicene Creed which uses unigenitum, “only-begotten.” It appears to be an ecclesiastical term and not one in general use.
γένος does have a range of meaning that might prove confusing to some. It can mean “ancestral stock,” hence descendant, even “a relatively large people group,” hence nation, people (BDAG). But this is not the same as “Son,” and the other meaning of γένος is “entities united by common traits,” hence class, kind (BDAG). Commentaries are unanimously agreed that in John 3:16 the word places its emphasis on uniqueness. Translations likewise translate the phrase as “(one and) only Son.”
You can see the sense of uniqueness when μονογενής is used to describe an only child:

• “only son” (μονογενής υἱὸς, Lk 7:12);
• “only daughter” (θυγάτηρ μονογενής, Lk 8:42);
• “my only child” (μονογενής μοί, Lk 9:38, note that there is no specific word for “child”).

It is used of Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” in the sense of the single one through whom the promises of God would be fulfilled (μονογενῆ, Heb 11:17). The NASB apologetically adds the footnote, “i.e., only son through Sarah,” i.e., the son of the promise. The NET footnote comments, “it was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2).”
The other uses of μονογενής are in John’s writings:

• ”the only Son from the Father,“μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός (Jn 1:14);
• “only God” (μονογενής θεός, Jn 1:18);
• “his only Son” (μονογενής θεός, Jn 3:16, no specific word for “Son”);
• “only Son” (μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ, Jn 3:18);
• “his only son” (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ; 1 Jn 4:9).

Certainly in John 1:8, μονογενής cannot mean “only begotten” since it describes Jesus as “God.” It would make no sense to describe Jesus as the only begotten God.
This unique relationship between God and Jesus is seen elsewhere in God being the Father and Jesus the Son, the Beloved (Matt. 3:17), and in Jesus’ differentiation between his disciples and himself. “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (Jn 20:17).
I know that it is hard to see a traditional translation changed, but better to get it right than stick with an inaccurate tradition.

 

[The Learner]

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3439: μονογενής

μονογενής, μονογενές (μόνος and γένος) (Cicero,unigena; Vulg. (in Lukeunicus, elsewhere) and in ecclesiastical writingsunigenitus), single of its kind, only (A. V. only-begotten); used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents), Hesiod theog. 426, 448; Herodotus 7, 221; Plato, Critias 113 d.; Josephus, Antiquities 1, 13, 1; 2, 7, 4; μονογενές τέκνον πατρί, Aeschylus Ag. 898. So in the Scriptures: Hebrews 11:17; μονογενῆ εἶναι τίνι (to be one's only son or daughter), Judges 11:34; Tobit 3:15; Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38; (cf. Westcott on Epistles of John, pp. 162ff). Hence, the expression ὁ μονογενής υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ and υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ μονογονης, John 3:16, 18; John 1:18 (see below); 1 John 4:9; μονογενής παρά πατρός, John 1:14 (some take this generally, owing to the omission of the article (cf. Green, pp. 48f)), used of Christ, denotes the only son of God or one who in the sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren. He is so spoken of by John not because ὁ λόγος which was ἐνσαρκωθεις in him was eternally generated by God the Father (the orthodox interpretation), or came forth from the being of God just before the beginning of the world (Subordinationism), but because by the incarnation (ἐνσαρκωσις) of the λόγος in him he is of nature or essentially Son of God, and so in a very different sense from that in which men are made by him τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ (John 1:13). For since in the writings of John the title ὁ ἱυος τοῦ Θεοῦ is given only to the historic Christ so called, neither the Logos alone, nor Jesus alone, but ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐνσαρκωθεις or Jesus through the λόγος united with God, is ὁ μονογενής υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ. The reading μονογενής Θεός (without the article before μονογενής) in John 1:18, — which is supported by no inconsiderable weight of ancient testimony, received into the text by Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, defended with much learning by Dr. Hort ("On μονογενής Θεός in Scripture and Tradition in his Two Dissertations" Camb. and Lond. 1876), and seems not improbable to Harnack (in the Theol. Lit.-Zeit. for 1876, p. 541ff) (and Weiss (in Meyer 6te Aufl. at the passage)), but is foreign to John's mode of thought and speech (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), dissonant and harsh — appears to owe its origin to a dogmatic zeal which broke out soon after the early days of the church; (see articles on the reading by Prof. Abbot in the Bib. Sacr. for Oct. 1861 and in the Unitarian Rev. for June 1875 (in the latter copious references to other discussions of the same passage are given); see also Prof. Drummond in the Theol. Rev. for Oct. 1871). Further, see Grimm, Exgt. Hdbch. on Sap., p. 152f; (Westcott as above).

Strong's Greek: 3439. μονογενής (monogenés) -- only begotten

 

[The Learner]

Only Son or Only God?
The initial problem is a textual one. Of the thousands of early Greek New Testament manuscripts, there are four principal textual variants of this phrase. We first need to establish which variant we believe represents the original text, then move from there into possible translations of that text. The four variants (in transliterated Greek) are:
1. ho monogenês (The Only One)
2. ho monogenês huios (the only Son)
3. monogenês theos (only God)
4. ho monogenês theos (the only God)

In the field of textual criticism, there are two fundamental criteria used to establish which text represents the original: External evidence and internal evidence. External evidence consists of examining the manuscripts containing the variants, collating them into "families" or so-called "text-types," charting them to see which variant may be present in the earliest manuscripts, determining which variant has the greatest manuscript support in raw numbers, which is distributed across the largest number of text-types, etc. Next, the textual critic will see which variant best explains the others - that is, if we can demonstrate that an original monogenês theos more easily was changed in the transmission process to ho monogenês huios rather than the other way around, the former reading gains support as the possible original text. Only after the external evidence has been weighed - and only if it is found to not to be conclusive - will textual critics turn to internal evidence, such as immediate and larger context, authorial style and usage, etc.

According to the majority of modern scholars (but by no means all), the external evidence favors monogenês theos as the original text. However, it must be noted that this reading exists primarily in the Alexandrian text-types. Textus Receptus - the manuscript tradition behind the KJV and many other Bibles - reads ho monogenês huios. This reading ranks second in terms of the number of manuscripts containing it, and has a wider distribution among text-types.

Turning to internal evidence, ho monogenês huios is consistent with John's usage elsewhere and fits the immediate context (Son...Father) better than the other variants. Buchsel says monogenês theos "can hardly be credited to J[oh]n, who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression" (TDNT, 4:740, note 14). Monogenês theos is a so-called hapax legomenon - a rare one-time occurrence in the NT. Textual critics prefer readings that are not unique, unless compelled by external evidence otherwise. But, as Kurt Aland, has noted even strong internal evidence should never outweigh external evidence (Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 280). Such is the case with John 1:18.

A final consideration, which many scholars consider decisive, is that it is easier to explain a scribe - either by design or mistake - changing theos to huios, rather than the other way around. The reading monogenês theos is the more "difficult" reading, in that it does not occur elsewhere in the NT, and it directly attributes theos to Jesus. As William Barclay notes, "the more difficult reading is always the reading which is more likely to be the original" (Jesus As They Saw Him, p. 23). This is because a scribe would generally be inclined to "smooth out" difficult readings, rather than create them. Even if it were a simple scribal error, the sudden appearance of a "difficult reading" in the manuscript tradition would likely be corrected back to the normative text, whereas a sudden "smoothing" might remain in place and ultimately replace the original.

On balance, monogenês theos is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.

 

[The Learner]

Translating Monogenês
There are two significant difficulties the translator must resolve when rendering monogenês in English: What does the word mean and does it function as an adjective or as a noun? The first difficulty is complicated by a long tradition of translating monogenês as "only-begotten." This is the rendering found in most English Bibles prior to the 20th Century, most notably the King James. The rendering "only-begotten," however, actually predates the Bible in English, going back to Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The Old Latin versions uniformly translated monogenês as the Latin unicus ("only"). Jerome rendered monogenês this way as well, when the word does not refer to Christ. However, in the six verses where it does, Jerome rendered it unigenitus ("only-begotten"). Jerome, probably following Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329 - 390), sought to respond to the Arian claim that Christ was a created being by referring to the relationship of the Father to the Son as one of "generation" (the Father = gennetor ["begetter"]; the Son = gennema ["begotten"]). Following Origen, Gregory (and Jerome) understood the generation of the Son to be an eternal process, one which maintained the unity of the Son in Eternity with His Father, while preserving the Biblical distinction between the Two.
This unfortunate (though perhaps well-intentioned) theological rendering of monogenês influenced the King James translators, and they in turn, most English Bibles produced since then. In the last century, however, scholars and translators have recognized that monogenês is not related to the verb gennao ("begotten"), but to ginomai ("to be"). Thus, the Old Latin and Jerome (in the verses not referring to Jesus Christ) are correct to render monogenês as unicus ("only") - literally, "one of a kind" (see Grammatical Analysis, below, for further details). And this practice has been followed by many modern versions, rendering it variously as "only," "unique," or "one and only." Some scholars and translators, however, argue that monogenês - when used of persons - carries the sense of an only offspring. Thus, translations such as the ESV, ISV and the RSV render monogenês in John 1:14 and Hebrews 11:17 as "only Son," even though it appears in these verses absolutely (that is, by itself, without an accompanying noun).

The second difficulty is determining whether monogenês functions as a noun or adjective in this verse. John uses monogenês as a noun (or "substantive") just four verses earlier. In John 1:14, monogenês is a substantive, meaning: "only Son" or "only One." But in three other verses (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), John uses monogenês as an adjective modifying the noun "Son" (Greek: huios). It would seem, on the surface, that John 1:18 is most similar to the adjectival usage, with the word "God" taking the place of "Son" (Greek: monogenês theos vs monogenês huios). In this case, monogenês would modify "God" in John 1:18 the same way it does "Son" in John 3:18: "The only God" or "Only Son God."

But surface appearances do not always reveal the entire picture. In his three clear adjectival uses of monogenês, John uses the article1. In the substantival use in John 1:14, he does not - nor does he do so in John 1:18. The lack of the article in John 1:18 suggests that monogenês and theos may be understood as two substantives in apposition ("only Son, [who is] God")2. As Fennema puts it:

"Reading the terms individually, rather than as a unit, is consistent with the lack of an article to bind them together."3

 

[The Learner]

McReynolds and Harris make the same point.4 Had John wished to use monogenês unambiguously as an adjective, he could have written ho theos ho monogenês. He could also have made the adjectival force far more likely by writing ho monogenês theos. Instead, he wrote simply monogenês theos, using monogenês without the article as he does just four verses earlier, and with a writer of John's evident skill, this certainly was intentional.

Further, in John's Gospel, there are 72 occurrences of nominative-masculine-singular adjectives (like monogenês, in John 1:18), and only eight of them precede the noun.5 That's an 8:1 ratio. Let's consider the eight. Three are terms which, to my knowledge, never occur substantivally in any context ("every," 2:10; "large," 6:5; "my," 7:8). That leaves five, one of which is monogenês theos. The remaining four are all allos mathêtês ("[the /an]other disciple," 18:15; 20:3; 20:4; 20:8). All but one are articular. Conversely, John uses allos five times substantivally (4:37; 5:7, 32, 43; 15:24; 21:18). In all cases, allos is anarthrous.

Considering John's usage of nominative-masculine-singular adjectives that can be substantivized preceding a nominative-masculine-singular noun, we find:

1. John only fronts a noun with monogenês once when he intends it to be adjectival, and it is articular in that case.
2. Excluding John 1:18, he uses the article 75% of the time when intending the adjectival meaning.
3. Again, excluding John 1:18, in all cases when intending the substantival meaning, he uses the anarthrous construction.

This is not to say that an attributive adjective must have the article.6 But these statistics suggests that John favors using the article with adjectives in the first attributive position, and therefore might intend a substantival meaning in the anarthrous monogenês in John 1:18. When we look at John's regular use of monogenês elsewhere, and particularly in the immediate context (monogenês is clearly used as a noun just four verses earlier), and consider the many clear examples of substantival use in Biblical and contemporary Greek texts,7 the evidence for a substantive reading is quite strong.

Conclusion
Monogenês means "only" or "only child/son/offspring." It can stand alone as it does in John 1:14 - "the only Son" - or it can be used adjectivally to modify a noun as it does in John 3:16 - "the only Son."8 In John 1:18, it can be viewed as a substantive ("The only one, "the Unique One"), a substantive absolute containing the idea of an only offspring ("the Only Son"), or adjectivally modifying theos ("the only God," "the unique God"). Theos can also be taken both substantivally ("God") or adjectivally ("divine"). Thus, the translator has a number of "legitimate" choices he or she can make that are true to the grammar. How each ultimately chooses to render the passage depends an a host of factors.
A number of prominent scholars prefer apposition to an adjectival rendering.9 Origen cites of John 1:18 in Contra Celsum 2.71: "kai monogenês ge ôn theos ...," which I would translate "the one and only [Son], being God..." McReynolds cites this as "a clear early witness as to how one should understand the reading monogenês theos."10

On the whole, I find the evidence presented by these scholars convincing. I would render monogenês theos as "the only Son, God." However, an adjectival reading for monogenês is also possible, yielding a translation similar to the ESV or ISV, "the one and only God."

 

[The Learner]

monogenhV qeoV Ò wn ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato

MONOGENÊS THEOS hO ÔN TON KOLPON TOU PATROS EKEINOS EXÊGÊSATO

[The} one and only God who is in the bosom of the father, [he] has explained [Him].


MONOGENÊS

BAGD: "In the Johannine lit[erature] m[onogenês] is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here...But some (e.g., WBauer, Hdb.) prefer to regard m[onogenês] as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One." (Bauer, it will be remembered, believed the Gospel of John was a gnostic text, and hence saw a theology behind John's writing compatible with the creation of the Logos as a semi-divine intermediary between the Monas and the creation with which He could not directly interact).
Louw & Nida: "Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - 'unique, only.'"
Moulton & Milligan: "Literally 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), not 'only-begotten....'"
Grimm/Thayer: "Single of its kind, only, [A.V. only-begotten]." (Note that Thayer's insertion merely cites the KJV translation, which owes considerable debt to the Vulgate of Jerome, who translated monogenês "unigenitus").
NIDNTT: "The only begotten, or only....RSV and NEB render monogenês as 'only.' This meaning is supported by R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, I, 1966, 13 f., and D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72, 1953, 213-19. Lit. it means “of a single kind,” and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of “only begotten” goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made."
Newman: "Unique, only."
LSJ: "Only, single" (references John 1:14, the only NT verse cited).
TDNT defines monogenês as "only begotten," but distinguishes between nouns ending in -genes and adverbs ending in -genês. The former denote the source of the derivation, the latter the nature of the derivation. Thus, the author (Buchsel) concludes that monogenês means "of sole descent." But Pendrick argues strongly against this view:

Buchsel's claim that "in accordance with the strict meaning of genos, -genês always denotes derivation" is contradicted both by the evidence of the aforementioned adjectives as well as by the fact that even in the earliest Greek literature genos occurs without the denotation of derivation. On the other hand...monogenês could be ... interpreted rather as 'only-born.' Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," NTS, 41, pp. 587-588).

Buchsel also calls "an only-begotten, one who is God:" "an exegetical invention [which] can hardly be credited of [John], who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression." (TDNT 4 p. 740).

Buchsel makes this comment in a footnote, and doesn't elaborate on his reasons for his conclusion. As far as I know, he has never in print provided a reason for this comment. Buchsel provides a list of his sources, but makes no reference to the Patristics. This is a rather striking omission, since the term is used over 100 times in Patristic writings. For Biblical and extra-Biblical uses of monogenês as a substantive, see note 7, below. In any case, few modern scholars writing on monogenês have agreed with Buchsel on this point.

 

[The Learner]

Articles...
The Text and Grammar of John 1:18 Dan Wallace

The One and Only Son Richard Longenecker



Blogs...

John 1:18 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation