Re: [John_Lit] John 1:1-10 - my proposed translation
- Bill Ross wrote:
> > <B>I'm sure some one is (including myself). But the question is whether YOU are
> > As you know, this particular construction lends an adjectival import
> > to the first noun.
> >>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.
> As I said, I am without my copy of GGBTB. Surely someone here is familiar
> with this construction??
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>No. That HERE AUTOU, given its referent, cannot be neuter.
> >>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".
> ? Masculine or neuter... What are you asserting? That AUTOU cannot be
> And what of hOUTOS?Are you really asserting that HOUT**OS** is neuter?
> > <J>No, you don't see. EIS is not hINA; it appears with a NOUN not a verb; and to
> > >>Why "came to in order to" for HLQEN EIS MARTURIAN?
> > <B>
> > I think this is dynamically equivalent, no?
> >>No, even absent the redundancy. Nor is it grammatically sound.
> Oh, I see. It is a typo. It should be "came in order 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.
>Straw man, I'm afraid. Where do you get the idea that the only possible let
> >>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
> No? Was Jesus/John speaking of his kingdom arising from the dirt? No - from
> the people. For example:
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>Especially when one does read Greek.
> >>EN meaning "among"?
> There is a certainb difficulty in translating one language into another.
>You mean GINOMAI. EGENETO is just one of the inflected forms of GINOMAI.
> >>DIA with the genitive means "to"? EGENETO means "arose"?
> That is the net effect - the dynamic equivalent.
> >>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?
> EGENETO is a versatile verb.
> See how often it is translated "came to pass"That's not the issue. The issue is whether you know of any instance of DIA with
> and "there arose"!:
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.
- --- Bill Ross <BillRoss@...> wrote:
> <B>Can you provide us with any evidence for this
> 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..."
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 andNow I'm really confused. Are you saying that it is
> 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
John's intent to say that God made the world through
the male and the female he created in Gen 1:26?
>But this is expressly what he does not say about
> 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...".
"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.
>You are missing a clause here. Is your fundamental
> 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
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
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!