¹ See especially Dahms, J. V., ‘The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered’, NTS 29 (1983) 222–32 and M. Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen n.F. 20; Münster: Aschendorff, 1988) 250–4. For a list of scholars who favour the interpretation ‘only’ see Dahms, 222 and Theobald, 251 n. 207; of those who favour ‘only-begotten’, see Theobald, 250 n. 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Made with the help of CD-ROM disk ‘C’ produced by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the use of which I wish here to acknowledge.Google Scholar

³ See Debrunner, A., Griechische Wortbildungslehre (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1917) 72, § 140 or L. R. Palmer, The Greek Language (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities, 1980) 256.Google Scholar

⁴ For θηλυγενής see Aeschylus Suppl. 28, Euripides Ba. 1156, Plato Lg. 802E; for όμογενής Democritus frg. 164, Aristotle De Gen. anim. 723b3; for έτερογενής, Aristotle De gen. anim. 723b7; Hist. anim. 601a26.Google Scholar

⁵ Büchsel, F., ‘μονογενής’, TDNT 4 (1967) 737–41, esp. p. 738 n. 6. His argument is accepted by Theobald, Fleischwerdung, 251 with n. 210.Google Scholar

⁶ See for example Odyssey 3.245, where γένος = a ‘generation’; Hesiod Works and Days 109, where γένος, may be explained either as ‘generation’ or as ‘race’, ‘species’; cf. Liddell, Scott and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940) s.v. III.2.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris: Klincksieck, 1983) 221–2.Google Scholar

⁸ Αίτρηγενής. 15.171; διογνής.Il. 1.337, Od. 2.352, etc.; παλαιγενής:Il. 17.561, Od. 22.395, etc. On the first element in these compounds cf. M. L. West, Hesiod: Works and Days (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 255.Google Scholar

⁹ So rightly Dahms, ‘Use’, 223, whose remarks on etymology, however, are imprecise.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In Theophrastus, μονογενής seems to shade over from ‘only one of its kind’ to ‘of only one kind or species’ cf. the (spurious) fragment of Archytas quoted by Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. 29.160, where entities (τάőντα) are declared to be not unique (μονογενή) or simple (άπλ) but complex (ποικίλα) and of many kinds (πολνειδ). Contrasted here with πολνιδ, μονογεν seems to mean ‘of one kind only’.Google Scholar

¹¹ Bultmann's suggestion (The Gospel of John [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971] 71 n. 2) that ‘mythological tradition’ lies behind Plato's use of μονογενής as a ‘cosmological attribute’ is unfounded. The mythology of the Timaeus is certainly Plato's own invention; cf. F. M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology (London: Routledge, 1948) 31, 34; P. Frutiger, Les mythes de Platon (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1930) 203–7, 244; L. Tarán, ‘The Creation Myth in Plato's Timaeus’, Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy (ed. Anton, J. P. with Kustas, G. L.; Albany: State University of New York, 1971) 372–407, esp. pp. 382, 391 with n. 162. And the later Gnostic use of μονογενής proves nothing about an alleged pre-Platonic use of the adjective. For Plato's (philosophical, not mythical) reason for thinking the universe unique cf. H. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy 1 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1944) 416 n. 347.Google Scholar

¹² Fleischwerdung, 251 n. 211. Büchsel's refusal (‘μονογενής’, 738 n. 5) to see a reference to class or kind in Plato's use of ‘μονογενής’ rests on an unnecessarily literal interpretation of the adjective.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf.Owen, G. E. L., ‘Eleatic Questions’, CQ n.s. 10 (1960) 102; L. Tarán, Parmenides (Princeton: Princeton University, 1965) 92–3; K. Bormann, Parmenides (Hamburg: F. Meiner, 1971)141.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf.Tarán, , Parmenides, 92–3; K. Bormann, Parmenides, 141; N.-L. Cordero, Les deux chemins de Parménide (Paris: J. Vrin, 1984) 187 with n. 29. On Büchsel's claim (‘μονογενής’, 738 n. 5) that ‘Parm. is certainly not thinking of a γένος to which being belongs’ see the remarks in n. 12 above. The evidence of Parmenides also shows that what Büchsel (738 n. 6) terms ‘the later philosophical use of γένος for kind’ antedates by at least a century the Platonic evidence he cites to exemplify it.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Paed. 2.43.3, Strom. 6.84.3, 145.7 with 0. Stählin, Des Clemens von Alexandreia Der Erzieher Buck II–III (Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, Zweite Reihe 8.2; München: Kosel & Pustet, 1934) 54 n. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On this church see Downey, G., A History of Antioch in Syria (Princeton: Princeton University, 1961) 342, cited by T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1981) 248 n. 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ ‘Use’, 224–5.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Broek, R.van den, The Myth of the Phoenix (EPRO 24; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972) 357–8, 387 n. 5 and cf. A. Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 17; Die Apostolischen Väter 1; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) 88–9.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Further examples of μονογενής = ‘unique’ in Christian Greek authors are cited in Lampe, G. W. H., ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961–1968) s.v. μονογενής A.3.Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘Use‘, 227–8.Google Scholar

²¹ West, M. L., Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford: Oxford University, 1966) 289, remarks: ‘I do not know what is the point of the addition έκ μητρός’ For μονογενής as an epithet of Hecate see also Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica 3.847 (μουνογένεια;ν), 1035.Google Scholar

²² Plutarch (de def. orac. 423A, C) interprets μονογενής in Plato's Tim. as ‘only-born’ (423A: μονογεν γεγενημένον). In De facie in orbe lunae 943B, on the other hand, Plutarch seems to interpret the adjective in an active sense, ‘giving birth to one alone’; cf. H. Cherniss, Plutarch's Moralia 12 (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1957) 199 n. f.Google Scholar

²³ Tarán, , Parmenides, 92. Given the elevated rates of infant mortality in Greco-Roman antiquity, there must have been many only children who were not the only ones begotten by their parents.Google Scholar

²⁴ Other instances where μονογενής is applied to offspring apparently in the sense of ‘only’, ‘single’ include Herodotus 2.79; Diodorus Bibl. 4.73.2; 6.7.2; Josephus Ant. 2.182; 5.264; 20.20 (on 1.222 see below); Anth. Graeca 14.52.3.Google Scholar

²⁵ 12.21. The passage is repeated in the pseudo-Clementine Recog. 7.21.5, Epit. pr. 89 and Epit. alt. 89. Although their origins are traceable to the second century, the pseudo-Clementine Hom, and Recog. in their final form do not antedate the fourth century. See Quasten, J., Patrology (3 vols.; Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1983) 1.61–2 and O. Cullmann, Le problème littéraire et historique du roman pseudo-clémentin (Paris: Fé1ix Alcan, 1930).Google Scholar

²⁶ See Büchsel, , ‘μονογενής’, 738–9; P. Winter, ‘μονογενής παρά πατός’, ZRGG 5 (1953) 335–65, esp. pp. 336–8; R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; New York: Herder, 1968) 1.271 n. 183.Google Scholar

²⁷ Likewise in reflection of Hebrew yahid, μονογενής, in some of these passages bears the additional connotation of ‘specially beloved’; see n. 30 below.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf.Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘μονογενής’, EDNT 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 440.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Winter, , ‘μονογενής’, 337–8, who collects the evidence in support of this; cf. Fitzmyer, ‘μονογενής’, 440. Note that Aquila uses μονογενής to translate yahîd in Gen 22.2, while Symmachus does the same at Gen 22.12.Google Scholar

³⁰ In fact the LXX translates yahîd in Gen 22.2, 12, 16 and elsewhere (see Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.271 n. 183) by άγαπητός. On Isaac as Abraham's μονογενής see Winter, ‘Mονογενής’, 338–40 and D. Moody, ‘God's Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version’, JBL 72 (1953) 213–19, esp. p. 217.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Use’, 223–4.Google Scholar

³² ‘Use’, 224.Google Scholar

³³ As Büchsel, , ‘μονογενής’, 739 n. 11, noted; see Matt 9.18–26, Mark 5.21–43 (~ Luke 8.40–56) and Matt 17.14–20, Mark 9.14–29 (~ Luke 9.37–43). The story of the widow's son occurs only in Luke.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Büchsel, , ‘μονογενής’, 739 n. 11 and Fitzmyer, ‘μονογενής’, 440. Note Jesus' pity upon seeing the funeral procession of the widow's only son (Luke 7.13).Google Scholar

³⁵ In Aristotelis artem rhetoricam commentarium (ed. Rabe, H.; Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 21.2; Berlin: Reimer, 1896) 43.Google Scholar

³⁶ Παρά πατός can be taken with μονογενος (either as a periphrasis for the genitive expressing possession, or with the notion of ‘coming’ supplied) or with δόξα (with the notion of ‘coming’ supplied). Cf. Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966) 14. In either case, it is difficult to agree with Theobald (Fleischwerdung, 253 n. 225) that παρά πατρός shows that the Johannine author ‘hier weniger auf den Sohn als vielmehr auf den Vater als dessen Existenzgrund hinschaut’.Google Scholar

³⁷ Against Bultmann's claim (Gospel, 71 n.2) that μονογενής in John 1.14 bears a different sense than in the other Johannine occurrences because the former passage stems from a different source than the others see R. Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.272. Theobald's argument (Fleischwerdung, 252–4) that μονογενής in John 1.14, 18 means ‘begotten from one alone’ also depends on differentiating the usage of the adjective in John 1.14, 18 from the other Johan nine occurrences. His argument falls to the ground if (as was argued above) the idea of ‘son’ is understood in John 1.14,18.Google Scholar

³⁸ On this aspect of Johannine christology see e.g. Moody, , ‘Only Son’, 217–18; M. de Jonge, Christology in Context (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 146–7; J. D. N. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (3rd ed.; London: Longman, 1972) 141–2.Google Scholar

³⁹ On the text and interpretation of John 1.18 see R. E. Brown, Gospel, 17. I follow him in interpreting μονογενής θεός as ‘the only son, God’, despite the objections of Buchsel, ‘μονογενής’, 740 n. 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Brown, , Gospel, 36.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See e.g. Jonge, de, Christology, 42–3, 145–6,190–4; cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) 39–40, 42–3, 44–5.Google Scholar

⁴² Büchsel, , ‘μονογενής’, 740. In the parable of the vineyard, Mark's ‘one, beloved’ son (Mark 12.6) and Luke's ‘beloved son’ (Luke 20.13) are close to John's ‘only son’.Google Scholar

⁴³ Parallel to the Johannine use of μονογενής to emphasize Jesus' uniqueness is the careful terminological distinction maintained between Jesus as God's ‘son’ (υίός) and believers as God's ‘children’ (τέκνα); see D. Moody, ‘Only Son’, 218–19. (Dahms, ‘Use’, 228–9 strangely turns this distinction into an argument against interpreting μονογενής as ‘only’.)Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The evidence and arguments are laid out in Brown, Gospel, 11–12 (on John 1.13); R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1977) 141, 520–1, and R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982) 620–1 (on 1 John 5.18b).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For a full discussion of 1 John 5.18 see Brown, Epistles, 620–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ ‘Use’, 231.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ On this way of speaking (which is peculiar to the Johannine authors) see Brown, Epistles, 384–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ ‘Use’, 230–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Winter, ‘Mονογενής’, 338 with n. 11; D. Moody, ‘Only Son’, 214; Dahms, ‘Use’, 225–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Text after Rehm, B., Die Pseudoklementinen 2: Recognitionen in Rufins Übersetzung (GCS 51; Berlin: Akademie, 1965) 207.Google Scholar

⁵¹ So Moody, , ‘Only Son’, 214–15, Fitzmyer, ‘μονογενής’, 440. For the text of the creeds in question see Enchiridion Symbolorum (ed. Denzinger, H. and Schönmetzer, A.; 33rd ed.; Barcinone: Herder, 1965) 31, 52.Google Scholar

⁵² ‘Use’, 227.Google Scholar

⁵³ Cf.Kühner, R. and Gerth, B., Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Tiil: Satzlehre (2 vols.; 3rd ed.; Hannover: Hahnsche, 1898) 1.303–4, 2.582–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf.Moody, , ‘Only Son’, 219 and Kelly, Creeds, 142.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Cf.Kelly, , Creeds, 142. On the possibility of Ignatius' acquaintance with the Prologue to John see A. Hoben, The Virgin Birth (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1903) 20–1.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ In Ep. Eph. 7.2 Ignatius characterizes Christ as είς ίατρός έστιν σαρκικός τε και πνευματικός, γεννητός; και άγέννητος, έν σαρκί γενόμενος, θεός, έν θανάτῳ ωή άληθινή, και έκ Mαριας και έκ θεο. Since Ignatius regards the divine element in Jesus' makeup as άγέννητος, ‘unbegotten’ (cf. Hoben, Virgin Birth, 19–20), it is unlikely that he interpreted the Johannine μονογενής (if he knew it) as ‘only-begotten’.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ ‘Use’, 227.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Apol.l 22.2; 23.2; Apol.2 6.3; Dial. 61.1; 62.4; 100.4; 128.4; 129.4, etc. and Trakatellis, D. C., The Pre-existence of Christ in the Writings of Justin Martyr (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 11–51, 173–4,179–80.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ On the basis of Apol. 1.21.1, Evans, E., Tertullian's Treatise against Praxeas (London: SPCK, 1948) 35, suggests that Justin probably read őς…έγεννήθη in John 1.13. If so, this would be an additional factor contributing to Justin's idea of the begetting of the Son by the Father.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Trakatellis, , Pre-existence, 25–6, 41, 44, 46, 50,179–80, and n. 59 above.Google Scholar

⁶¹ ‘Use’, 227.Google Scholar

⁶² In support of the interpretation ‘only-begotten’ Dahms (‘Use’, 228) refers also to Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 7 (exinde eum patrem sibi faciens de quo procedendo filius factus est primogenitus, ut ante omnia genitus, et unigenitus, ut solus ex deo genitus, proprie de vulva cordis ipsius, etc.). A glance at Adv. Prax. 6–7 shows that Tertullian is influenced by the same three OT texts as Justin (Prov 8.25; Ps 2.7; 110.3 LXX). This, together with his christology (which is even more developed than Justin's), accounts for Tertullian's interpretation of the Johannine μονογενής.Google Scholar

⁶³ On the development of NT christology see Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribners, 1965); Brown, Birth, 29–32,140–2, 313–14; de Jonge, Christology; Dunn, Christology.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Brown, , Birth, 141–2, 314 n. 48; Dunn, Christology, 42 with n. 166; A. Hoben, Virgin Birth, 17–79, esp. pp. 17–42 (on the harmonization process from Ignatius to Irenaeus).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Apol.l 33.1–6 with Hoben, Virgin Birth, 25, 29 and Trakatellis, Pre-existence, 28–9, 156–7. For the harmonization of ‘conception’ and ‘pre-existence’ christologies see further Apol.l 21.1; 32.10–14; 63.15–16; Dial. 48.2; 87.2; 100.4, etc. with Hoben, 30 and Trakatellis, 157–8,170–1 (who does not, however, recognize the harmonization process as such).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Moody, , ‘Only Son’, 215, who points out that in the Latin creeds μονογενής is translated usually (though not invariably) by ‘unicus’. — I would like to thank several anonymous readers of an earlier draft of this paper for their helpful comments and suggestions.Google Scholar