The Meaning of Monogenēs as an Ordinary Greek Word—According to the Church Fathers
I begin by observing that Giles says the church fathers took μονογενής to mean “unique” “as we would expect if modern discussion on the meaning of this word are correct.” But as Giles acknowledges, this is “modern discussion.” Why would we expect the church fathers to follow a modern scholarly assessment of an ancient Greek word? It wasn’t until the late 19th century (B. F. Westcott) and mid-20th century (Francis Marion Warden and Dale Moody) that scholars began to question the translation “only begotten” in the New Testament. More recently Gerard Pendrick has done so in a significant 1995 article published in New Testament Studies. Prior to the late 19th century, at least since the time of Jerome and even earlier, the term in its five Johannine instances was rendered into Latin as unigenitus (“only begotten”). Even the revisionist scholars (Westcott, Warden, and Moody) admitted that at least in the fourth-century church fathers, if not by the Council of Nicaea (325) definitely by the First Council of Constantinople (381), the term μονογενής began to take on the meaning “only begotten” in Greek patristic literature. Pendrick thinks the shift from “unique” to “only begotten” began much earlier, in the writings of the second century apologists. Just because most modern scholars think μονογενής meant “unique” in extra-biblical Greek prior to the New Testament and in the New Testament itself, that does not warrant the assumption that that is what it meant for Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers. This is just an initial observation that doesn’t prove Giles wrong, but it throws doubt on his working assumption.
But let’s dig in and see what the Greek-speaking church fathers actually said they believed was the meaning of μονογενής. We don’t have to speculate. They explicitly addressed the question. Now, they may be wrong in their own assessment of their language. That’s not out of the realm of possibility. Native speakers sometimes misunderstand their own language, especially if they have an agenda, and the church fathers certainly had an agenda. But we aren’t addressing the meaning of μονογενής in Greek. We are addressing what the church fathers thought it meant.
Well, the Greek-speaking church fathers routinely defined the term as meaning “only begotten” with the implication of having no siblings. When they said this, they even made it clear that they were referring to “common usage” apart from its specialized use in Trinitarian discourse. For example, here is what Basil of Caesarea says about the term:
“In common usage μονογενής does not designate the one who comes from only one person [as the Arian Eunomius wanted to argue], but the one who is the only one begotten (ὁ μόνος γεννηθείς) …. If your [Eunomius’s] opinions were to prevail, it would be necessary for the entire world to re-learn this term, that the name ‘only-begotten’ does not indicate a lack of siblings but the absence of a pair of procreators” (Basil, Against Eunomius 2.20-21; PG 29.616-17; FoC 122, pp. 159, 161).
It should not go unnoticed that Basil and Eunomius agreed that the -γενης stem means “begotten.” Their disagreement was over the meaning of the μονο- stem. Eunomius wanted to take it to mean “of one” so that μονογενής would then mean “begotten from only one person.” But Basil said “the entire world” knows μονογενής means “the only one begotten,” with the implication that the person so designated has no siblings.
The church fathers understood the word μονογενής, as an ordinary Greek word, as involving notions of “begetting,” “procreation,” and “offspring.” It didn’t just mean “unique” but “only child.” This can be seen in their analysis of two contrasting biblical titles for Christ, μονογενής (“only begotten”) and πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”). The church fathers thought μονογενής carried the implication of not having any siblings, and as therefore contradictory with the term πρωτότοκος, which does imply siblings because the firstborn is first in a series. The two terms are contradictory because you can’t be both “only begotten” and “firstborn.” If you are the firstborn, that means you have siblings, and therefore you aren’t an only child. Here are two quotes where the church fathers say just that:
“The term μονογενής is used where there are no brethren, but πρωτότοκος because of brethren” (Athanasius, Against the Arians 2.62; NPNF2 4.382).
“Who does not know how great is the difference in signification between the term μονογενής and πρωτότοκος? For πρωτότοκος implies brethren, and μονογενής implies that there are no other brethren. Thus the πρωτότοκος is not μονογενής, for certainly πρωτότοκος is the first-born among brethren, while he who is μονογενής has no brother; for if he were numbered among brethren he would not be only-begotten” (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 2.7-8; NPNF2 5.112; Refutatio confessionis Eunomii §76 in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 2, ed. Jaeger [Leiden: Brill, 1960]).
Of course, the New Testament does apply both terms to Christ, so the church fathers had to deal with this apparent contradiction. They resolved it by arguing that the term μονογενής (“only begotten”) is applicable to the Son absolutely, as he is in himself, apart from creation and new creation, while the title πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”) is applicable to the Son relatively, as the “firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15), “the firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18), “the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:29), that is, as he exists, not absolutely and immanently, but in relation to creation and new creation. This argument is made by Athanasius (Against the Arians 2.62-64; NPNF2 4.382-83) and Gregory of Nyssa (On Christian Perfection to the Monk Olympios, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 8.1, ed. Jaeger [Leiden: Brill, 1963], pp. 200-202).
But the point at present is not how they resolved the apparent contradiction, but the fact that they thought it was an apparent contradiction in the first place. The apparent contradiction arose from what to them were the lexical realities of the meanings of these two words: μονογενής (“only begotten”) and πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”).
Dear Lee, thank you for your latest post. I can see we will need to be very careful that we do not pass like ships in the night. I of course do not deny that monogenes implies the idea of begetting. All children are begotten, whether or not they are monogenes. And of course I note that the Greek church fathers connected the words gennao and monogenes when used of the Son of God. For them, the Son is monogenes because he alone is eternally begotten.
What you have set yourself to prove in opposition to me is that 1. John the evangelists and the early Greek fathers who spoke Greek thought the PRIMARY meaning of monogenes is “only begotten” and 2. That for the early Greek fathers the word monogenes and the Johannine texts in which it is found are the PRIMARY basis for their doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Is this what you are trying to prove? If not explain to me again what you are trying to prove.
I will make my reply to you unambiguously and clearly. You have chosen to engage me in debate, and you honor me in doing this, but you must prove your case. Making stark assertions that your opponent rebuts proves absolutely nothing. I am open to change my mind if the evidence demands this but if I consider your arguments faulty, mistaken or unconvincing I am bound to say so in the cause of truth. I hope in writing in reply unambiguously and clearly I do not cause offence. It is not personal in any way.
Now to the points you make. In paragraph one you seem to miss my point. I must have worded myself poorly. My argument is that what the early Greek fathers, as native Greek speakers, took as the primary meaning of the word monogenes is to be accepted. Whatever they thought it meant we should agree this is what it meant for them. I read Grudem to be saying in his 2002 denial of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son that the early Greek fathers were mistaken in their understanding of this word – which to me sounds an absurd idea.
Also in paragraph one you mention several modern studies on monogenes. Much more than what you mention has been written and I see no one dissenting from the view that the primary meaning of monogenes is unique, one of a kind. This is the overwhelming scholarly consensus. I have some pretty strong support for my view.
Yes, some argue that in John more is implied and some argue in the Greek fathers we see some development and still later it must be noted that in the Latin translations monogenes was rendered unigenitus – only begotten. This is of little consequence to me. I agree the idea of begetting cannot be excluded from the word monogenes – all children are begotten whether or not they are only children. And I agree the Greek church fathers argued that what made the Son monogenes was that he alone is eternally begotten. To say this is however not to concede that the primary meaning of monogenes is “only begotten” or that this word and the texts in which it is found is the primary biblical basis for their doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.
You begin your appeal to the Greek fathers with a text dated about 360 by Basil which I discuss in my book, The Eternal Generation of the Son, page 132. You claim that this text proves that Eunomius and Basil are agreed the –genes stem means “begotten”. This is an assertion that your evidence does not support. I simply cannot see this in the text. For me, what they agree on is that monogenes refers to something one off – something that sets the one designated “monogenes” apart.
In your next paragraph you say the church fathers understood the word monogenes to involve the notions of begetting, procreation, off spring. We are agreed. When this word is used of the Son he must be begotten, procreated and an off spring. This is not to say the word means “only begotten”. Your next words “It [monogenes] didn’t just mean “unique” but “only child”, is a non sequitur. Surely an only child is a one off – a unique child?
Next you claim the Greek church fathers thought the monogenes carried the implication of not having any siblings, YES, YES, YES. You have them right. The divine Son has no brothers by birth. He is uniquely the eternally begotten Son. Again we agree. What is the debate?
Then you claim the word monogenes stands in contradiction to the term prototokos. What are you arguing? To claim “you can’t be both “only begotten” and “First born” makes no sense at all to me. Surely Jesus can be the monogenes Son - however you understand this word - AND the prototokos Son. You should also note that the scholarly consensus is that in speaking of the Son as prototokos in Colossians 1:15 Paul is primarily alluding not to chronological birth order but to the Son’s pre-eminence.
The quotes you then give to prove your point do not. Again they are just assertions. In fact they exclude your argument. Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa are not arguing that the Son cannot be both monogenes and protokos – they certainly do not think the Bible contradicts itself!!! For Athanasius Jesus is called the monogenes Son because he has no brethren - ie because his is uniquely Son by eternal generation. In contrast, he is called protokos because he is first in honor and status among those who can be called his brothers by grace.
Gregory in his own words makes the same argument.
Your paragraph beginning “Of course” seems to me just to put your confused and mistaken argument again that the church fathers were struggling to deal with a contradiction in Scripture. What can I say?
Sorry, Lee, you have not convinced me I am wrong on anything I have said in my book, The Eternal Generation of the Son. I hope you put forward some weightier evidence and better arguments in your next blog to refute me on whatever you are trying to refute me on.
Kevin Giles 1.1.2017.
Posted by: Kevin Giles | 12/31/2016 at 07:13 PM