2- NT usage.— In the NT the expression lios fiMvor/erq^ is used only of Christ by John (3'*- '*, 1 Jn 4*). The passage Jn I'' is a contested read- ing, and in any case comes onlj- indirectly into comparison. Elsewhere in the New Test, the ex- pression occurs in Lk 7'- (the young man of Nain), S'- (the daughter of Jairus). 9** (the demoniac boy). He 11'* (Isaac). In the LXX fj.ovcr,€VT)t is frequently the tr. of T-;, especially wherever the idea of uniqueness or aloneness seems to l>e emphasizeti : Jg 1 1**, Ps 22-^* 25'* 35'" (cf. also To 3'' 6">- '^ 8'"). The expression uoxovev^s acquires a qualitative secondary meaning from the fact that vhat is ' unique " is naturally of special value. An ' only son " is a specially beloved son. This secondary meaning lielongs in all likelihooil to the expression I'ios fiovoyarqs in Jn. also. Cremer compares with it the term used by St. Paul in Ro 8^— i ios rSios. In the LXX, where this secondary meaning is empha- sized, the rendering ayarrp-oi is chosen for ";■"• • Gn 22-^-i-i6, Jer 6^«, Am 8'^ Zee 12'^ In the Sj-noptics (in the narratives of the Baptism and the Transfiguration), where Christ is called woi
282
ONLY BEGOTTEN
OPPKESSION
dyaTTTiTds, fiovoyevrji could hardly be substituted. The expression here corresponds to the Tna of Is 421 [LXX ^K\eKr6s] (for d7a7r77T6s in Lk 9^^ Cod. HB and other MSS give iK\e\eyfievos). In all the pass- ages in Jn., with the exception of P'*, it seems we might substitute the expression dyairriTos for fxovoyevrjs.
Jn P*. — This passage is of interest because the question arises whether instead of w6s /xovoyevris we ought not to read ^eos novoyevr)^. Hort strongly supports tiiis view with a brilliant display of learn- ing, and has proved that the latter reading was very widespread in the Ancient Church. It is to be found in a number of good MSS of the Gospel : XBCL 33 and in the Pesh. and Cojitic versions. He also argues, in support of it, that ' the whole Prologue leads up to it, and, to say the least, sutlers in unity if it is taken away.' Supposing that we have to accept this reading, it appears to the present writer probable that St. John, in applying this predicate to Christ, was influenced by regard to a non-Christian religious employment of the notions of fiovoyevris and debs fx.ovoyevr)s, and that the expression vlbs fjLovoyevrjs has thus in his writings a special secondary meaning in addition. For the term Moj'07ej'7js occurs in the Valentinian (Ptolemaic) system as the name of one of the seons (Irenseus, i. 1 ft'., ed. Harvey). Wobbermin, how- ever, has shown that the term was of special sig- nificance in the Orphic mysteries, seeing that it occurs there as the personal name of a powerful in- comparable divinity. Just as St. John took over from the Hellenistic philosophy the title ' Logos ' for Christ, in order to remove from the minds of Christians the fear that there was beyond Christ a higher mediator between God and man, so he might have taken over from the highly imjiortant Orphic cult the title 'Monogenes,' in order to show Christians that they knew Him who is in reality the debs /uLovoyevris. We should then have to suppose that St. John has invested the expression with a meaning which was foreign to general and popular usage, but which probably corresponded with the use of the word in Orphic circles. That is to say, it is possible to interpret the term fj-ovoyev-^s as designating Christ as e'/c fiovov yev6tJ.evos (cf. airro- 7evi7$ — a name of an aeon in the Barbelognosis [Iren. I. xxix. 1], yriyev7}s — a description of man- kind in Clem. Rom. [First Ep. to Cor. xxxix. 2] etc.). Christ would then be the 'God' who pro- ceeded from the 'only,' i.e. from the 'true God,' the Son who sprang fi'om the 'unique One.' In that case the idea of ayair-qTbs, noted above as the secondary meaning which per se everywhere best suits the context, would recede into the back- ground. But the present writer does not regard it as likely that St. John knew anything of Orphism. In the whole Gospel there is nothing else to sug- gest this. It might, indeed, be said that the con- ception of the Logos in the Prologue is the only trace of Hellenism in the Fourth Gospel. But in the first place this is not quite correct, and again in itself it is much more likely that John [the author of the Gospel is unmistakably a Jew] knew the philosophy of Philo than that he was acquainted with the Orphic system. Thus the present writer believes that it was persons like Clement of Alex- andria who were first reminded of the Orphic titles of the peons by the predicate iJLovoyevr)i applied to Christ as Son of God. He further holds that the Church so far thought she was acting wisely in making out of the wos fj-ovoyev/js of Jn V^ a debs fj-ovoyevris, in oi'der to be able with more assurance to meet both Orphism and Gnosticism.
Literature.— F. J. A. Hort, Two Diswrtations, i. 'On fj-ovo- yivy.; OU;' ; B. F. Westoott, The use of the term /Mvoyivf,; in the Epistles of St. John, p. 169 ff . ; H. Cremer, Worterbuch der mutest. Graecitcit; J. H. Heinrich Schmidt, Synonymik der