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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... Could you please tell just what the Lexicons are that you consulted? Liddel and Scott? BDAG? TDNT? And what do you mean by seem to indicate ?  They
    Message 1 of 34 , May 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
       

      Bill Ross wrote:

      > <Joe>
      > >>Like Jeffrey Gibson, i must also ask why you translate logos as utterance.
      >
      > <Bill>
      > It has to do with the lexicons. It has to do with the context. The lexicons
      > I have referred to seem to indicate that a LOGOS is an utterance.

      Could you please tell just what the Lexicons are that you consulted? Liddel and
      Scott? BDAG? TDNT?

      And what do you mean by "seem to indicate"?  They either do or they don't state
      that LOGOS means "utterance" and more particularly that it is used with this
      sense in Jn 1:1.  So which is it?  And do they draw any distinction between
      arthrous and anarthrous LOGOS?

      Moreover, is "utterance" **all**  that these (as yet un-named) Lexicons indicate
      as the meaning with which LOGOS was used in the first  century?    Perhaps you'd
      be kind enough to actually quote the entry on LOGOS that appears in the Lexicons
      you "referred to".

      > The
      > context, a direct reference to Genesis 1, and creation, refer not to any 4th
      > century Roman born Trinity.

      Gross bifurcation, I fear, since the range of possibilities of what LOGOS might
      mean in Jn 1:1 is not limited to just "utterance" (if even that is a real
      possibility" and  some reputed 4th century meaning. (By the way -- the use of
      LOGOS as ground of "trinitarian" theology was hardly Roman born. I take it you
      haven't read much Athanasius).

      In any case, I ask again, what Lexicons have given you the impression that in
      first century Greek "a LOGOS" is only an "utterance"?

      JG
      --

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      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!
        http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.