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

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

Expand Messages
  • Bill Ross
    ... speak, read, write and interpret New Testament Greek. I am beginning to get the uncomfortable suspicion that you are a lexicon graecist.
    Message 1 of 34 , May 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      <Jack>
      >>The question has been asked but gone unanswered comcerning your ability to

      speak, read, write and interpret New Testament Greek. I am beginning to get

      the uncomfortable suspicion that you are a "lexicon" graecist. Lexicons are

      great tools for those who have a facility in Greek and, of course, this list

      requires members who engage in interpretive issues to know Greek well.

      <Bill>
      "Speak" NT Greek? You *are* a tough moderator!

      "to know Greek well" is a bit vague. I read the OT and NT in Greek, and
      consult helps as needed.

      I make mistakes - often egregous ones - so I value exchange with others.

      Of course, as moderator, feel free to point out any egregious errors I may
      have made. However, please refrain from evaluations based on alledged
      Orthodoxy, popular readings or undisclosed criteria.

      If you find my reading of "utterance" too lexicon-based, to Gen 1, what is
      the correct modus operandum for identifying the meaning of hO LOGOS that
      will prove my salt?

      I am tempted to interpret your moderation by condescencion as an example of
      the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

      Does it alarm you that Jeffrey suggests "purpose" for LOGOS?? Or are you
      delighted that he has not resorted to the crass practice of consulting a
      lexicon?

      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, 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.