It isn't without any concept of parentage...
I was speaking of the recent practice of translators to render monogenes as "the only one" (NET), "the One and Only" (NIV), "the one-of-a-kind" (Message).
Kutilek, who you will later quote, believes that the proper understanding of monogenes is "one that completely excludes any notion of “begetting†or “begottenâ€".
Also, many of your quotes use the word begotten, but I am talking about the use of MONOGENES in the Scriptures.
My point was to show how these early Christian writers understood this aspect of the nature of Christ. They understood that Jesus was begotten from the Father and they based this belief on John chapter 1 and other texts, such as Col 1:15 where Jesus is called "the firstborn over all creation".
I know that it is a very common belief among Trinitarians to believe in “eternal generation of the Son", As you have shown, this belief goes back almost as far as the Bible itself.
I don't believe that the earliest Christians believed in the "eternal generation of the Son" as modern Trinitarians do. I believe, as Kutilek seems to later agree, that the concept of the "eternal generation of the Son" was simply later used to salvage the idea of a co-eternal, co-equal Trinity in light of the Scriptural teaching of a begotten, Son of God.
Monogenes is found nine times in the New Testament: Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; I John 4:9.
In each of these Biblical cases the word is used in the context of a parent, the beggeter, and their child, the begotten, which is the same way that John uses it in his speaking about the relationship between the Father and the Son.
However, here it is notable that Isaac was not the only son that Abraham had fathered (“begottenâ€), that is, contrary to the common English version’s translation, Isaac was not Abraham’s “only-begotten son,†in as much as Abraham had an older son named Ishmael, thirteen years Isaac’s senior. On this basis, one suspects that there is something decidedly erroneous in the use, here at least, of “only begotten†as the English translation of monogenes.
I don't think that it is incorrect to translate monogenes as "only begotten" in this case. This would be consistant with the Hebrew text, where in Genesis 22, Isaac is referred to as Abraham's "only son" (yachiyd). Certainly God was aware of the existence of Ishmael and yet he refers to Isaach as Abraham's "only son".
The translation of monogenes by “only-begotten†in the KJV and other English versions in six of the nine New Testament occurrences (all except those in Luke) would suggest a presumed etymology from monos, “only†and gennao, “to beget, father, procreate.†This presumed etymology is certainly erroneous.
If this is an erroneous understanding of monogenes, the early Christians, including those who wrote and spoke Greek, are guilty of the same mistake. To me this seems very unlikely.
In the Apostolic fathers, Clement of Rome (and later Origen, Cyril and others) employs monogenes to describe the Phoenix, a bird reported to live 500 years--a unique bird, in a class by itself. (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part I, vol. 2, p. 87.) The usage here is strictly in the literal sense of the word--â€unique, one of a kindâ€--with no thought of endearment or preciousness as commonly found in New Testament and Greek Old Testament usages. At the very least, it reveals with certainty that monogenes has nothing per se to do with “begetting.â€
I don't agree with this statement. Clement's discussion of the Phoenix centers on the strange manner in which bird reproduces, being born from its own ashes. He contrasts seed, through which one seed brings forth many plants, to the Phoenix which is the only-begotten of its kind. To say that in this context monogenes has nothing to do with with "beggetting" is incorrect, for it is at the center of Clement's discussion.
What then is the best way to translate monogenes into English? “Only-begotten†is clearly unacceptable, because it is based on a false etymology and misunderstanding of the word. Taken literally, the English word suggests derivation, creation, origination of Christ, a view which I believe is false and clearly in contradiction to the teaching of the Bible.
I feel this paragraph highlights the real crux of the matter and Kutilek's theological bias. As far as he is considered, "only-begotten" is an unacceptable translation, because it clashes with the Trinitarian idea that Jesus, as the Son of God, had no origin, derivation, or creation and is "co-eternal" with the Father.
Understanding monogenes in its proper sense--one that completely excludes any notion of “begetting†or “begottenâ€--has strong theological implications for the doctrine of Christ. It renders moot the whole heated theological debate of the third and fourth centuries concerning the so-called “eternal generation of the Son,†a term which leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling that if we accepted such terminology at face value, we were admitting de facto that Christ was a created being and not God. It also makes the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that Christ was “begotten but not made†(gennethenta, ou poiethenta) just a bunch of verbal nonsense.
Again we see Kutilek's Trinitarian theology steering his understanding. In affect, he is saying that the 20th century Biblical Greek scholar knows more than the Greek speaking Christian of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. These early Christians believed that Jesus was begotten of God and they got these beliefs from their reading of the Scriptures, including John chapter 1.
The reason that debate came was with the later Alexandrian controversy on the nature of Christ, which was a step toward the development of the later Trinity doctrine. If the Son of God was indeed begotten, that implied that he had a beginning, and if he had a beginning he was not co-equal with the Father. Their solution to this "problem" was not to dispense with the idea that Jesus' was begotten, as Kutilek here desires, but rather to shore up their beliefs with the confusing notion of the “eternal generation of the Son."
Kutilek's desire to strip monogenes of "any notion of “begetting†or “begotten†is a modern-day solution to the centuries' old problem with the Trinity doctrine. As I stated in my original posting, even seminary professors have difficulty rationalizing the Scriptural concept of a begotten Son of God with the Trinity Doctrine's notion of co-eternality.
I find it interesting that proponents of the Trinity doctrine cry foul at the Watchtower's theologically influenced rendering of John 1:1 (perhaps rightly so); but, turn a blind eye to their own equal treatment of John 1:18, which goes beyond translating monogenes as unique or singular; but rather, where "the only-begotten son" becomes the awfully constructed, "God, the One and Only". That, of course, is another subject for debate.
I will agree that "the only-begotten" doesn't properly convey the sense of uniqueness and endearment that the Greek monogenes carries. However, quite often, this is the case where our English equivalents do not give due justice to their Greek counterparts.