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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... I m sure some one is (including myself). But the question is whether YOU are familiar with it and why, ESPECIALLY given what Wallace says in GGBTB
    Message 1 of 34 , May 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill Ross wrote:

      > > <B>
      > > As you know, this particular construction lends an adjectival import
      > > to the first noun.
      > <J>
      > >>I know no such thing. Perhaps you'd care to explain what, according to
      > the noted rules of Greek syntax, the construction actually is and how it
      > does what you say it does.
      > <b>
      > As I said, I am without my copy of GGBTB. Surely someone here is familiar
      > with this construction??

      I'm sure some one is (including myself). But the question is whether YOU are
      familiar with it and why, ESPECIALLY given what Wallace says in GGBTB regarding
      what the construction portends for the translation of Jn 1:1c, you still claim
      that it "lends adjectival import to the first noun."

      > <Jeffrey>
      > >>You are begging the question in assuming that LOGOS **is** speech. Not to
      > mention ignoring that this is a masculine pronoun. And curiously later on
      > in your "translation" you render the pronoun with "him".
      > <bill>
      > ? Masculine or neuter... What are you asserting? That AUTOU cannot be
      > neuter?

      No. That HERE AUTOU, given its referent, cannot be neuter.

      > And what of hOUTOS?

      Are you really asserting that HOUT**OS** is neuter?

      > > <J>
      > > >>Why "came to in order to" for HLQEN EIS MARTURIAN?
      > >
      > > <B>
      > > I think this is dynamically equivalent, no?
      > <J>
      > >>No, even absent the redundancy. Nor is it grammatically sound.
      > <b>
      > Oh, I see. It is a typo. It should be "came in order to":

      No, you don't see. EIS is not hINA; it appears with a NOUN not a verb; and to
      render HLQEN EIS MARTURIAN as "he came in order **to testify**" is a violation,
      not to mention a wholesale misunderstanding, of the grammar, the wording, and
      the syntax of the text in question.

      > <J>
      > >>That John speaks of the KOSMOS as that which does not accept Jesus has
      > nothing to do with, and is hardly evidence for, KOSMOS ever, let alone
      > consistently, meaning "lost community". On top of that, to say that John
      > uses KOSMOS as "lost community" **at any time** not only ignores all lexical
      > evidence for the semantic range of KOSMOS in the first century, but makes
      > nonsense of such passages as Jn. 18:26. -- "My kingdom is not of this "lost
      > community""?
      > <B>
      > No? Was Jesus/John speaking of his kingdom arising from the dirt? No - from
      > the people. For example:

      Straw man, I'm afraid. Where do you get the idea that the only possible let
      alone probable alternative rendering to what you propose of as the true
      interpretation of Jn 18:26 is "my kingdom is not of this dirt". Can you point
      to a single instance anywhere in Greek literature where KOSMOS is used for

      > <Jeffrey>
      > >>EN meaning "among"?
      > <Bill>
      > There is a certainb difficulty in translating one language into another.

      Especially when one does read Greek.

      > <J>
      > >>DIA with the genitive means "to"? EGENETO means "arose"?
      > <b>
      > That is the net effect - the dynamic equivalent.
      > <J>
      > >>Can you point to any Greek grammar that says that this is the case? Or any
      > instance in Greek literature where we find DIA with the genitive used in
      > this way?
      > <B>
      > EGENETO is a versatile verb.

      You mean GINOMAI. EGENETO is just one of the inflected forms of GINOMAI.

      > See how often it is translated "came to pass"
      > and "there arose"!:

      That's not the issue. The issue is whether you know of any instance of DIA with
      the genitive meaning "to" and whether there is any instance in extant Greek
      literature of DIA + the genitive + GINOMAI that means "arose to X.

      Please point me to some.


      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
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.