And this is verified by what exactly...another translation?
Yes, but not necessarily a translation of the Bible. For example, many modern translations translate the term monogenes in John 1:18 to mean unique rather than the AKJs only begotten. In his book Crowned With Glory, ©2000 Dr. Thomas Holland indicates that the word is used in 8 other NT verses (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) and each time it indicates a parent-child relationship- either an only son, an only daughter or an only child. A translation such as the ISV translates the term both ways: as only child when the people discussed are unnamed, but it uses the term unique son when Isaac is mentioned and unique God when Jesus is discussed. How can the word be correct both ways in the same translation?
Further confirmation that monogenes means only begotten comes from
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm. The author of this article uses as his authority a neighbor who is a Greek native of Thesalonika and fluent in English. The article claims that modern Greeks can understand Koine so the Greeks read the Bible without any intermediates between them and the manuscripts. Funk & Wagnalls indicates that following the reign of Justinian the literary form of Greek was confined to church use, a few scholars and a few writers. As the Byzantine Empire disintegrated spoken Greek evolved to a great extent, but literary Koine remained unchanged- but still in use in the major cultural centers. The literary form of Greek continued mostly unchanged into Turkish times and was still used for religious writing. Vernacular Greek did not begin to supplant literary Koine until the latter half of the 19th century. So the end result is that Greek writers have a continuous tradition since Biblical times- they should know what the Koine of the Biblical manuscripts mean and they know that the Koine word for unique is not monogenes. What right does a translator, for whom Greek is not a first language, have to say native speakers are wrong?
Also, we should consider the use of monogenes in its linguistic and historical aspects since the term predates the writing of the NT. As an advocate of modern translation you probably reject the scholarship behind Strongs Lexicon. But a more recent lexicon, the Bauer, (Arndt) Gingrich, Danker Greek lexicon, supports the historical translation by saying that the term monogenes is analogous to prototokos which means firstborn. Again the term is associated with a parent-child relationship and not with uniqueness.
On the historical level we can examine how monogenes was used by the early Church as well as the Greco-Roman community at large. On page 231 of The Johannine Use Of Monogenes Reconsidered (NTS 29, 1983) John V. Dahms concluded that the modern reading of monogenes has little to support it, while evidence from Philo, Justin and Tertullian, as well as the its use in the NT itself makes it clear that "only Begotten" is the most accurate translation for the term.
Monogenes as used in the AKJ did not originate in Christian times. The online periodical Open Face for June 2002 reports that Grace Theological Journal says, "The Greek translations of the Old Testament (Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus) also employ the word nine times, each time translating a form of the Hebrew word yahid. Each one of these occurrences refers to an only child, seven of them to an only child in the ordinary sense. But twice the term is used of Isaac the son of Abraham (Gen 22:2, Aquila; 22:12, Symmachus)...." Apparently the term monogenes has no history of meaning anything but a parent-child relationship.
The online periodical Present Truth (November 2002) published by Smyrna Gospel Ministries also comments on the historical use of the term monogenes:
Christian commentators in the early Church, like modern day Biblical scholars, had to wrestle with the idea of an eternal God having a beginning through the process of begetting. To beget means to bring into being and it can be said that anyone who is begotten had an origin. To maintain the co-eternity of each member of the Trinity many of the early Church Fathers postulated that God the Father eternally generates God the Son. This makes the Son dependent upon, and thus in-equal to, God the Father. Such an idea is as unacceptable to me as the thought that Jesus had an origin, for both theories negate the literal sonship of Jesus.
But yet the Church Fathers still accepted monogenes as meaning only-begotten. If the 1st century Church and the NT writers did not believe in the literal sonship of Jesus and if they accepted monogenes to mean unique how did later Christians ever change the term to mean only-begotten? If Jesus is the unique God rather than the only-begotten Son of God the Church Fathers could have retained the unique reading of monogenes instead of devising eternal generation to explain His sonship.
The more widespread use of monogenes does not support the modern translations. Various websites indicate that the term monogenes was applied to the Greek goddesses Hecate and Persephone and to several other Greek deities to mean only-begotten. How could the NT writers have used this term to mean unique when the Greek society for which they wrote used the term to mean only-begotten?
Modern translations that render monogenes as unique rather than only-begotten are flat wrong from a linguistic and historical standpoint. So why would modern Bible translators intentionally mis-translate a term that is intimately connected with a point of doctrine, if they do not wish to change doctrine?
BTW: A thought occurred to me: If Jesus is the unique God, then there must be other gods in existence. How else can we determine that Jesus is the unique God without having a pantheon to compare Him to? If there is only one God, then He is not unique, since He does not have any characteristic not displayed by the other gods since those other gods do not exist. In Greco-Roman mythology Zeus was a unique god since he was king of the gods on Mount Olympus- no other god was similarly king. If Jesus was the unique God in comparison to the Father, then were Father and Son separate Gods? This would destroy Judeo-Christian monotheism.
