THE CATACOMBS
You are here: Home
> Catacombs > Articles
On translating the Greek word "monogenes"
Does
monogenes mean "Only-begotten" or "Unique"? The ISV
renders John 3:16's "only begotten" as "unique". This is also the rendering
in the margin of the NASB. But I do not see how "unique" is the most
accurate and most clear translation, which the ISV claims to be. Jesus is
God's unique son in many ways. The way he is unique is not as clearly
stated in the ISV as it is in the Greek, which states clearly his uniqueness
is in being the only begotten son of God.
The trouble is, the
Greek isn't "clearly" (your word) saying "only-begotten". The traditional argument
about the problem is that if MONOGENES is derived from a root of the verb
GINOMAI (to become), then the word means "only existing" and hence
"unique", but that if MONOGENES is derived from a root of the verb GENNAO
(to beget), then the word means "only begotten".
Also for
understanding of the reader, "only begotten" clearly states a truth that
God has a son from himself, the ISV leaves the uniqueness unstated and
therefore obscures the matter for the reader. The ISV translation is
therefore not the most accurate or clearest translation of John 3:16. The
traditional and literal rendering "only begotten" is.
Unfortunately, both
GINOMAI and GENNAO appear both to be derived from the GEN root, which
therefore proves nothing! The ISV renders the word as "unique".
It would
make more sense if Jesus was called "Unique Son" rather then "Only Begotten
son." I think the word begotten means produce, create and procreate. That
would mean that Jesus "was created and thus not God," as the watchtower
society would put it.
This last statement
about linking "begotten" to the Arian heretics at the Watchtower is simply
not true. The Nicene Creed summarized the issue succinctly. The begetting
is one of being "eternally begotten" and applies to the uncreated Son.
That the Son is (notice we didn't say "was") "begotten, not made" is the
point of the Nicene Creed. That this theological position is taught in
Scripture in places other than John 3:16 is self-evident. See the entire
first half of Colossians, for instance, as well as the first chapter of
Hebrews. The question is not whether the eternal begetting of the Son by
the Father is taught in Scripture. It is! The question is whether
MONOGENES means "begotten" rather than "unique".
I'm no
Greek scholar but I prefer "Unique Son." But is that the proper translation?
We think so at the ISV
Committee on Translation, but in light of the controversy over the issue
at the Translation Committee for the Holman Christian Standard Bible, we
are taking another look. For now, we're sticking with "unique". Regardless
of our view on MONOGENES, all members of the ISV COT affirm the Nicene
Creed's statement about the Son. That this conformity to the Nicene
Creed's affirmation concerning the eternal begotten nature of the SON is
NOT true of Steven Carlson, managing editor for the Holman Christian
Standard Version, is being confronted at a senior level by academics
associated with Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
|
