μονογενής

monogenhv" monogenhv",
monogenev" (
movno" and
gevno") (Cicero, unigena; Vulgate (in Luke unicus, elsewhere) and in ecclesiastical writings unigenitus), 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;
monogenev"
tevknon
patriv, Aeschylus Ag. 898. So in the Scriptures: ;
monogenh'
ei\nai
tivni (to be one's only son or daughter), ; ; ; ; ; (cf. Westcott on Epistles of John, pp. 162ff). Hence, the expression
oJ
monogenhv"
uiJov"
tou'
Qeou' and
uiJov"
tou'
Qeou'
oJ
monogonh", ,; (see below); ;
monogenhv"
parav
patrov", (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
oJ
lovgo" which was
ejnsarkwqei" 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 (
ejnsarkwsi") of the
lovgo" 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
tevkna
tou'
Qeou' (). For since in the writings of John the title
oJ
iJuo"
tou'
Qeou' is given only to the historic Christ so called, neither the Logos alone, nor Jesus alone, but
oJ
lovgo"
oJ
ejnsarkwqei" or Jesus through the
lovgo" united with God, is
oJ
monogenhv"
uiJov"
tou'
Qeou'. The reading
monogenhv"
Qeov" (without the article before
monogenhv") in , -- 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
monogenhv"
Qeov" 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 (,; ), 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).*