Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] John 1:1-10 - my proposed translation

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Why utterance for LOGOS? Why do you take QEOS in 1:1c as if it were QEOIS? Why all people for PANTA. Why not one person for OUDE EN? Why it for
    Message 1 of 34 , May 6, 2005
      billrossfamily wrote:

      > I would appreciate any evaluation of the following, which is my
      > proposed translation of John 1:1-10. Thank you.
      > (1) In the beginning was the utterance
      > And the utterance was in company with God
      > And the utterance was divine [utterance].
      > (2) This same [utterance] was in company with God
      > (3) All [people] came to be through it
      > And not even one [person] came to be without it
      > What came to be (4) by it was a life
      > And that life was the light of mankind
      > (5) and the light is shining *in darkness*
      > And the darkness has not supressed it
      > (6) A man came to be, sent from God. His name was John
      > (7) This one came to in order to be a witness
      > That he might testify concerning the light
      > In order that all might believe through it
      > (8) {That one [John himself] was not the light
      > But rather, in order to testify concerning the light
      > (9) [this other] was, [the] true light that lights all mankind}
      > Coming into the lost community,
      > (10) the lost community arose to him. The lost community came to be
      > [in response to] him and the lost community did not recognize him.

      Why "utterance" for LOGOS?

      Why do you take QEOS in 1:1c as if it were QEOIS?

      Why "all people" for PANTA.

      Why "not one person" for OUDE EN?

      Why "it" for AUTOU?

      Why "in darkness" for EN **THi** SKOTIAi"?

      Why "came to in order to" for HLQEN EIS MARTURIAN?

      Why "lost community" for KOSMOS?

      Where is your English equivalent of EN TWi KOSMWi NH?

      What is the Greek that you are translating as "the lost community arose to him"?


      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • R. Robert Jenkins
      ... Can you provide us with any evidence for this statement? I have some handbooks on the Gospel of John written by translators, some commentaries in which the
      Message 34 of 34 , May 9, 2005
        --- Bill Ross <BillRoss@...> wrote:

        > <B>
        > My stated premise for my translation of "utterance"
        > has not been addressed.
        > Let my restate it for closer scrutiny...
        > When John says "EN ARKH" ISTM that most translators
        > understand him to be
        > saying "Once upon a time..."

        Can you provide us with any evidence for this
        statement? I have some handbooks on the Gospel of John
        written by translators, some commentaries in which the
        commentators give their own translations and discuss
        what they mean by them, and some works by John scolars
        like C.H. Dodd who discuss Jn. 1:1, and none of them
        give any hint that they have the understanding you say
        "most translators" do.

        So could you produce something from a translator that
        shows that "Once upon a time" is what ytasnaltors
        understand John to be saying in 1:1?

        whereas I hear him
        > saying "Ladies and
        > gentlemen, if you would, please turn in you
        > Septuagint to page 1. I am going
        > to tell you who is being referred to by the word
        > "us" in "Let us make
        > man...".

        Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that it is
        John's intent to say that God made the world through
        the male and the female he created in Gen 1:26?

        > The main think that John is expounding, I believe,
        > is that in Gen 1,
        > everything that was made, without exception, was
        > made in conjunction with
        > the utterance, "let there be...".

        But this is expressly what he does not say about
        "man". There is a conspicuous absence of the let
        there be phrase in the section of Gen 1 where God
        creates "man, both male and female" in his image.

        > In the course of this discussion, I realize that my
        > objection to "the word"
        > (non-capitalized only) is not so much linguistic as
        > it is to the baggage
        > that the term is made to carry - that it is a
        > reference to something from
        > Greek philosophy rather than God's word(s).
        > So, I ask, is my fundamental interpretation, that EN
        > ARKH refers us to Gen
        > 1, and "PROS TON THEON" refers us to "let us
        > make..." and "by means of hO
        > LOGOS everything was made" refers us to "Let there
        > be..."?

        You are missing a clause here. Is your fundamental
        interpretaion what? Reasonable? I don't see how it
        could be. What possible lingusitic or allusive
        connection could there be between "he was with God"
        and the divibe declaration of intent to make humankind
        in God's image in Gen 1:26? And it becomes even more
        unlikely given how Dr. Gibson has shown how all that
        John says about the LOGOS in John 1:1 is what Jews
        were saying about the Torah.

        R. Robert Jenkins

        Discover Yahoo!
        Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.