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

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

Expand Messages
  • Bill Ross
    ... are familiar with it and why, ESPECIALLY given what Wallace says in GGBTB regarding what the construction portends for the translation of Jn
    Message 1 of 34 , May 7 8:53 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      <Jeffrey>
      >>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."

      <Bill>
      Actually, it is Mounce, in Basics, that specifically discusses John 1 in
      this light. Can anyone cite it? My copy is many miles away. Thanks.

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

      <B>
      Would you say that it must be "he"? Because "O LOGOS" is a "male"?

      <J>
      >>Are you really asserting that HOUT**OS** is neuter?

      <B>
      I am implying that the use of hOUTOS in lieu of AUTOS serves to
      depersonalize rather than personalize hO LOGOS.

      <J>
      >>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.

      <B>
      Ok. How do you translate it?

      Bill Ross
    • 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 2:25 PM
      • 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!
        http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.