Featured The new LSV(Literal Standard version)

No, its the second edition, while BDAG would be third edition!

 

Ok, well BDAG does not say Only Begotten should be used. It says that there is at least one reading that uses this. It actually states that Only (or unique, etc) is appropriate for all instances.

 

This dispute can be easily resolved.

Here is the entry for μονογενής in BDAG 3rd ed. e-version p. 658.

μονογενής, ές (μόνος, γένος; Hes.; LXX; PsSol 18, 4; TestSol 20:2; TestBenj 9:2; ParJer 7:26; ApcEsdr 6:16; ApcSed 9:2; Joseph., Just.; loanw. in rabb.) acc. μονογενῆ (-ῆν J 3:16 v.l.; Hb 11:17 D; also ApcEsdr 6:16)

1. pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son (Jos., Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17. Of an only son (PsSol 18:4; TestSol 20:2; ParJer 7:26; Plut., Lycurgus 59 [31, 8]; Jos., Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter (Diod. S. 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42. (On the motif of a child’s death before that of a parent s. EpigrAnat 13, ’89, 128f, no. 2; 18, ’91, 94 no. 4 [244/45 AD]; GVI nos. 1663–69.)

2. pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 εἷς κ. μονογενὴς ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. μονογενῆ κ. μόνα ἐστίν=‘unique and alone’; Pla., Timaeus 92c; Theosophien 181, §56, 27). Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: ὁ μονογενής υἱός; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; ὑμνοῦμέν γε θεὸν καὶ τὸν μ. αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. ἡ δύναμις ἐκείνη ἡ μ. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213–19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284–87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587–600). τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἔδωκεν J 3:16 (Philo Bybl. [100 AD]: 790 fgm. 2 ch. 10, 33 Jac. [in Eus., PE 1, 10, 33]: Cronus offers up his μονογενὴς υἱός). ὁ μ. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ vs. 18; τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός 1J 4:9; cp. Dg 10:2. On the expr. δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335–65 (Engl.). See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33–36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56–79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222–32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—On the mng. of μονογενής in history of religion s. the material in Hdb.3 25f on J 1:14 (also Plut., Mor. 423a Πλάτων . . . αὐτῷ δή φησι δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον [sc. τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν; Wsd 7:22 of σοφία: ἔστι ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἅγιον μονογενές.—Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Αγγελος I 1925, 24–33; RBultmann J (comm., KEK) ’50, 47 n. 2; 55f.—DELG s.v. μένω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.


I do not own a BDAG 2nd ed. e-version, but I do own a hard copy. Here is a photo of the entry.

 

Yes, you can still sin, doesn't make it right.

 

”27 For the Son of Man is about to come
in the glory of His Father, with His messengers, and
then He will reward each, according to his work.
28 Truly I say to you, there are certain of those
standing here who will not taste of death until they
may see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.””

Good for them. They give a faithful rendering of this passage.

 

No such thing.

 

If only such a thing as "context for context translation" existed.

 

I took a quick look at Matthew and figured out several things immediately. There is a PDF at: (The Holy Bible (LSV).pdf)

First of all, the translators do not know koine Greek very well. They don't know what the historical present is, since they translate this usage with an English present tense in 4:19, "Jesus says...." Secondly, they don't understand verbal aspect in the participles, since they translate those as time usages rather than by aspect, such as in Matt. 5:1, where they have "having seen" for an aorist participle. This rendering misses aoristic aspect and concentrates on the tense instead. (I shouldn't be too hard on them, since my beginning Greek students have trouble with this. ) Next, their insistence on using the original word order from time to time shows they don't understand syntax.

That's enough to tell me they are making the same linguistic errors as good old Robert Young did.

 

It was fulfilled at the Transfiguration on the Mount, as still awaiting his second coming!

 

So not recommended by you as a worthwhile translation?

 

It appears to be from the TR, since it has the trinitarian 1 John 5:7, which no other Greek NT has.

 

Do the 2 editions agree with each other then? As even BGAD has that part on only begotten one!

 

It's only usage that I see would be to help a national translator doing a missionary translation to understand Greek syntax.

 

It has those words in double brackets [[ meaning they are not original ]] to be fair.

 

It seems to be using the TR/MT texts mainly. Didn't the YLT use the TR?

 

The 2 edition are very close to one another. The 3rd edition has been expanded. Both editions state the same thing in regard to the topic.

I. The 3rd Edition:

"In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: ὁ μονογενής υἱός; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; ὑμνοῦμέν γε θεὸν καὶ τὸν μ. αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. ἡ δύναμις ἐκείνη ἡ μ. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213–19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284–87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587–600)."

Now I will remove all the reference material.
"In the Johannine lit. ονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here."

The 2rd Edition:
In the Johannine lit. μ. is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.

Both editions say the same thing on this point.


II. The 3nd Edition:
The sections addressing only-begotten.

"Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56–79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222–32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One..."

Now I will remove all the reference material.
"Some prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One..."

The 2nd Edition:
"But some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One..."

Now I will remove all the reference material.
"But some prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One..."

Both editions say the same thing on this point.


III. Now what do they say?

(1) Both BDAG editions clearly state that in the Johannine corpus only\unique is a perfectly fine translation of the Greek.

(2) Both BDAG editions clearly state that some (and a list of those sources are given) "prefer to regard" μονογενής meaning as "somewhat heightened" (i.e.
only-begotten or begotten of the Only One).

 

So they both would allow for either use of the term?

 

I can only go by what is written on the page.

In the Johannine corpus only\unique is a perfectly fine translation of the Greek.
Some prefer to regard μονογενής meaning as somewhat heightened.

 

So both would be acceptable, as some regard and prefer one use over the other.

 

Young's Literal Translation? Yes. Stephens 1550 I believe.