On Translating Monogenēs: A Proposal
With a selection from Cyril of Alexandria's Thesaurus
The traditional rendering of monogenēs (μονογενής) as “only-begotten” is misleading, at least when one is translating fourth-century theological texts. In the controversies following Nicaea, there was much debate about the meaning of monogenēs in John 1:18, the disputed question being whether the term signified something begotten, i.e., an offspring (the Nicene view), or only indicated the unique manner of the Son’s creation (the view of Arius and Eunomius). Rendering the word as “only-begotten” gives the false impression that Nicenes had the high ground in the argument, it being immediately apparent that “only-begotten” must refer to an offspring rather than to a product in some other sense. Nicenes themselves did not simply assume that the term referred to the Son as begotten, but spilled much ink arguing for this interpretation.
The alternative translation proposed by some scholars, “unique,” rarely captures the term’s meaning. For although the term did not necessarily indicate begottenness, it nearly always signified the uniqueness of a thing’s origin in a more general sense, at least in the context of fourth-century polemics. This connotation is not captured by “unique.”
The nature of the originative relation connoted by monogenēs is more complex than has often been recognized. In Nicene texts, a thing can be described as monogenēs in the sense that it is (i) the sole product of its sort, or (ii) the sole product brought forth by its producer, or (iii) the sole product produced in a certain way. The Picture of Dorian Gray, the only novel produced by Oscar Wilde, would be monogenēs in the first sense, though Wilde also produced works in other genres; the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, his one and only literary work, would be monogenēs in the second sense; and Kerouac’s On the Road, perhaps the only book ever to have been typed on a 120-foot continuous roll of paper during a three-week caffeine-fueled binge, would be monogenēs in the third sense.
All of these senses of the word can be found in Nicene texts, but none is adequately captured by “only-begotten,” which is too precise in the mode of production that it implies (namely, begetting). I therefore propose a new translation of the term that I believe accommodates its range of meaning well: “unique-in-origin.” This translation has the virtue of avoiding the implication of begetting, while preserving the connotation of origination with its attendant complexity. There are a handful of cases in which this translation does not work—chiefly, those few passages in which monogenēs does simply mean “unique.” But this can be remedied by a simple footnote, and seems a small price to pay for a translation that is in general much more accurate. The chief problem is stylistic. For example, this translation demands a slightly circuitous rendering of John 1:18, such as “… the God who is unique-in-origin, being in the bosom of the Father…” But this too seems a price worth paying for a less misleading translation.
To give a concrete illustration of my proposal, I have included part of my translation of Book XXV of Cyril of Alexandria’s Thesaurus, where he discusses the theological meaning of monogenēs at length. A clear case of sense (i) can be seen in §15. Sense (ii) is operative in §13-14 and 20, and sense (iii) in §§10-12. In some places, it is not clear which of the three senses is being used, as in §§2 and 8. And in a handful of passages, monogenēs simply means “unique,” as in §§16-18.