For those who want to research this further, I strongly suggest as a starting point the superb article by Michael Marlowe that reviews the scholarship :
The Only Begotten Son -
o monogenhV
uios
Michael Marlowe
... Dahms concludes, "the external evidence, especially from Philo, Justin, and Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of its occurrences, makes clear that 'only begotten' is the most accurate translation after all." ...
http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html
Doubtless this article is scholarly, but it has some serious issues. First, it gives an accurate account of monogenes in respect of its NT usage:
"The Greek word μονογενής is an adjective compounded of μονος “only” and γενος “species, race, family, offspring, kind.” In usage, with few exceptions it refers to an only son or daughter. When used in reference to a son, it cannot mean “one of a kind,” because the parent is also of the same kind."
But then, as you have pointed out, the article digresses quickly into a specific Trinitarian usage as per the usual culprits, referring to monogenes in John 1:18
“This phrase translates a single Greek word and explicitly points to the eternal generation of the Son in the Trinity.” (
Reformation Study Bible (Ligonier Ministries, 2005).
Also quoted is Athanasius in his
Defence of the Nicene Definition (ca. 353), points to the word μονογενής in John 1:14 as one Scriptural proof for the teaching.
It has been shown above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this.... John in saying, “The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” spoke of what He had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does “in the bosom” intimate, but the Son’s genuine generation from the Father?
11
The article maintains:
"The truth is, those who do not acknowledge this meaning of the word μονογενής in the Johannine writings are themselves dogmatically motivated. Their preferred translation—“only”—is an undertranslation which hides from view a Scriptural datum that supports the Christology of the ancient Creed but which happens to be unpopular with modern theologians."
This is bigotted unscholarly nonsense, for there is nothing to relate the above with what was said at the beginning of the article, i.e. that monogenes refers
to “species, race, family, offspring, kind," excepting an appeal to the usual hardcore Trinitarian ECFs.
The TRUTH is that the term "son" in the bible refers to a
human being, and the term monogenes infers a naturally born
human being, and has nothing to do with the Logos being eternally generated by the Father, per Trinitarian dogma, which in reality adopts the "one of a kind" meaning to monogenes in respect of the Logos. Yet monogenes is nowhere used of the Logos: it is only used of Jesus, the man. It the Logos had been eternally generated from Ὁ Θεός then it is the Logos that would have been termed monogenes. The application of monogenes to the Logos is specious.
Trinitarians have, without any scriptural authority, been using monogenes to underpin their gnostic Trinity doctrine, in fact derived from perverting the sciptures; whereas monogenes is only ever used of a natural born human being in the New Testament.
